Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

South Africa (Racial Situation)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds the British delegation declined to co-operate in the United Nations Commission on the South African racial question.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British delegate to the United Nations to propose that the question of the legality of the United Nations Commission appointed to study the dangers of racial segregation in South Africa be referred to the International Court of Justice.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has taken to contest the legality of the appointment of the United Nations Commission to study the dangers of racial segregation in South Africa.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden): Her Majesty's Government have declined to assist the United Nations Commission on the Racial Situation in the Union of South Africa, since they consider that the Commission was illegally constituted. They consider that a reference to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion would be superfluous, and do not propose to take any further action.

Mr. Brockway: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that issues of security and peace are involved in the racial conflict in the Union of South Africa, and does he not think that in this changing world we have to accept racial conflicts

in other territories as a concern of the whole world?

Sir A. Eden: The hon. Member knows, better than most hon. Members, I think, that Article 2 (7) of the Charter was the outcome of very extensive discussions at the time it was drawn up. The late Government took the same view as we did on the matter. My personal view is that, having drawn up the Charter, we must stand by its terms.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a serious matter when one of the founder members of the United Nations alleges that the General Assembly is acting illegally? Does not the Foreign Secretary consider that the matter should not be left on that basis? Would it not, therefore, be a desirable action to secure an advisory opinion from the International Court to settle the issue which has arisen between the Government and the General Assembly?

Sir A. Eden: No, Sir, I do not think so. A number of other Governments took the same view as we did, and the late Government took the same view. I do not think we can refer all these differences of interpretation to The Hague Court.

Refugee Funds

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British representative at the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, in voting for the amalgamation of the 12 million dollar programme of the High Commissioner of Refugees with the United Nations Refugee Emergency Fund, made it clear that the United Kingdom would contribute its fair share to the 12 million dollar programme as thus amalgamated.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): In voting for the resolution amalgamating the High Commissioner's scheme for "permanent solutions" with the existing United Nations Refugee Emergency Fund, the United Kingdom delegate made it clear that no further financial support could be promised at the present time.

Sir R. Acland: How is it that when I asked a fortnight ago whether the British Government could take a more generous view towards this fund, I was


given in answer the fact of the amalgamation, as if by this voting for amalgamation the British Government were signifying a more generous attitude, whereas in fact it has been as bad as ever?

Mr. Turton: I do not think the hon. Baronet realises that we are leading in our generosity towards these refugee funds. In fact, we have made a contribution to the High Commissioner's Fund of £100,000, and we have a record second only to that of the United States in dealing with the care of refugees.

Economic Development Fund

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much is the United Kingdom share of the estimated initial capital sum of $250 million proposed by the Committee of Nine who drew up the report on a Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development.

Mr. Turton: The Committee of Nine experts considered that contributions to the proposed fund should be voluntary. Should Her Majesty's Government decide to participate in such a fund, it would be for them to determine at that time the amount of this country's contribution, subject to Parliamentary approval.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not the fact that we originally refused to enter this fund because we could not afford it? How can we say that we cannot afford it until we have some idea of what we shall be called upon to contribute?

Mr. Turton: I think the answer which I am going to give to the next Question will clarify the hon. Member's doubt.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the United Kingdom representative did not support the 20-nation draft joint resolution of 22nd October on the establishment of the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development in his speech to the Second Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation.

Mr. Turton: The draft resolution involves positive steps to establish a fund. Her Majesty's Government consider such steps premature before sufficient financial

support is forthcoming. These reasons were fully explained in the speech of the United Kingdom delegate on 25th October.

Mr. Beswick: Does this mean that we refuse to make an estimate of our contribution because we are waiting to know what definite steps will be taken, and that we are not going to take any definite steps because we do not know how much they are going to cost? Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question? Does he not think that the kind of contribution we shall be called upon to make to this fund will yield more security than any of the military pacts his right hon. Friend has recently been concluding?

Mr. Turton: The view of the Government is that while we have existing commitments for both defence and economic expenditure it would be unwise for us to make a contribution to this fund. At the present time, the House will recollect, this country, under the Colombo Plan and also for colonial development schemes, is committed to spending large sums of money to help the development of these under-developed countries.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not Article II of the S.E.A.T.O. Agreement make it quite plain that this kind of economic development of expenditure is defence expenditure in the strictest sense of the term? If that Article is not to be a dead letter, something more must be done. Should not the Government reconsider whether they can make a contribution to this fund?

Mr. Turton: I entirely agree. The question is how we are to do it. We shall be discussing the position under Article III of the S.E.A.T.O. agreement later tonight.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is it a fact, as certain reports suggest, that our delegate, speaking on this question of further funds, said that the Government preferred to strengthen the technical assistance programme instead? Does that mean that the Government are now going to restore the cut that was made in the contribution to technical assistance, in view of the fact that the technical assistance programme looks like fading out altogether?

Mr. Turton: There has not been a cut, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but if he will put that Question down I will


deal with it. I will also, if the right hon. Gentleman likes, let him have a copy of the speech of Sir Alec Randall.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is not one of the troubles about these funds the fact that when the funds are spent the recipients do not know who are their friends and who are providing for them?

Oral Answers to Questions — GENEVA CONFERENCE (RECIPROCAL GUARANTEES)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has made to the countries represented at the Geneva Conference for a reciprocal guarantee arrangement covering settlements made at the Conference.

Sir Anthony Eden: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which I hope, with your help, Mr. Speaker, to be allowed to make in the course of the debate today.

Mr. Warbey: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assist the course of the debate today by informing us whether he has taken any steps to carry out the suggestion he made on 22nd June, namely, that attempts should be made to draw up some reciprocal guarantee arrangement on the Locarno model?

Sir A. Eden: The hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that I will deal with the matter of the reciprocal guarantee in the debate. It is easier to deal with it there than in question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Quadripartite Meetings, Berlin (Air Safety)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Four-Power Conference on air safety which has been taking place in Berlin.

Mr. Turton: The last quadripartite meeting was held on 23rd November last year. No date for a further meeting has been suggested.

Mr. Henderson: Surely this is extremely unsatisfactory? Did not the conference arise out of the shooting down of an R.A.F. Lincoln bomber with some

loss of life? That took place 18 months ago. What are the Government proposing to do in view of the impasse at the conference?

Mr. Turton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that it takes four to make a quadripartite meeting. The talks have not been broken off, but the attitude of the Soviet representative at the last meeting gave the allies little encouragement.

Mr. Henderson: Have the Soviet authorities given an assurance that they will not repeat this action by shooting down any plane, British or other nationality, which may stray across the East German frontier?

Mr. Turton: I think it would be wiser if the right hon. and learned Gentleman put that question on the Order Paper.

Bombing Range, Cuxhaven

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements he has come to concerning the future use of the German coast for bombing practice for the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Turton: The only range used for bombing by the Royal Air Force on the German Coast is that near Cuxhaven. The arrangements governing the use of this range are contained in Command Paper 8684 of November, 1952.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister not aware that there is considerable indignation among our German friends about the bombing of this coast, which is a bird sanctuary? Is it not time, in view of the new German tactical air force, that we had some reciprocal agreement that we do not bomb the German coast on condition that they do not bomb ours?

Mr. Turton: An exchange of letters was recently completed with the German Federal Government whereby we have undertaken to give 24 hours' advance notice of night as well as of day bombing. The Americans have given a similar undertaking.

Radio Station, Soviet Zone (Interference)

Mr. Cooper-Key: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the East


German authorities against the violation of the Copenhagen Wavelengths Plan of 1950 which is making the reception of the Home Service on 330 metres impossible to obtain in many districts on the south coast without interference.

Mr. Turton: This interference is caused by a radio station in the Soviet Zone of Germany operating in violation of the Copenhagen Agreement. The matter has been taken up formally with the Soviet High Commissioner in Germany by the United Kingdom High Commissioner.

Armed Forces

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what agreement the German Federal Republic is, or will be, precluded from establishing, maintaining and expanding forces under national control in addition to the forces to be placed under the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and in addition to the internal defence and police forces which are to be the subject of special agreements.

Sir Anthony Eden: The necessary provisions are contained in Protocol No. II to the Brussels Treaty and the Resolution of the North Atlantic Council to implement Section IV of the Final Act of the London Conference. Both these are included in Command Paper 9304.

Mr. Warbey: As the Protocol to the Brussels Treaty specifically provides for forces under national control in addition to those placed under S.A.C.Eur., and as the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has to take its decisions unanimously and the German Federal Republic will therefore have a veto power, where is the power to prevent Germany from raising forces purely under national control?

Sir A. Eden: The hon. Gentleman has got it only partially right. The Paris Agreement lays down the forces which Germany should contribute under Article 1 of the Brussels Protocol—there is no dispute about that—except as regards internal defence and police forces. So far as those are concerned, under Article 5 of the Protocol they are to be the subject of special arrangements within our new Western European Union. The Federal Republic will not

have any other forces, above those agreed in the Western European Union, for any purpose unless there is unanimous agreement in the N.A.T.O. Council that she should.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the association of the United Kingdom with the European Coal and Steel Community in view of the impending visit of M. Monnet to this country.

Mr. Turton: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 1st November.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the long time that the negotiations are taking, can the hon. Gentleman give us some idea when we may expect M. Monnet to be here, and can he say whether the proposals now under discussion involve any surrender of sovereignty?

Mr. Turton: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the reply of 1st November said that the next meeting of the Council of Members of the Community would be expected to take place on 22nd November.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. COUNTRIES (ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose to the other nations concerned the setting up of permanent machinery for economic co-operation under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Sir Anthony Eden: Adequate machinery already exists within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for dealing with such economic problems as arise out of its common defence effort. Larger problems of trade and economics are probably best considered in organisations with wider membership which include our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation partners.

Mr. Grimond: Was it not the original intention that these larger problems should be considered by N.A.T.O. and


that the machinery should be set up under Article 2? Would it not be to the advantage of the whole organisation if the economic possibilities were more strongly stressed?

Sir A. Eden: I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but since then there has been a very considerable growth in the authority and importance of O.E.E.C., which is doing very valuable work for a large number of the countries and in which all the major powers are represented. Although it is desirable in principle to do as the hon. Gentleman wishes, we have to be careful not to overlap.

Oral Answers to Questions — ISRAEL-JORDAN ARMISTICE COMMISSION

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent report has been received from the Israel-Jordan Boundary Commission.

Sir Anthony Eden: I presume the hon. Member refers to the Israel-Jordan Mixed Armistice Commission. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 2nd November, Israel recently resumed participation in the Commission after an absence of seven months, and since the beginning of September conditions on the Israel-Jordan frontier have been quieter than for several months past.
I understand that General Burns, the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation, is continuing his efforts to bring about an agreement for direct contact between Israel and Jordan Military Commanders in the Jerusalem area. These are encouraging developments and I hope they may lead to further progress in reducing tension along Israel's borders.

Mr. Grimond: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that reply and welcoming the initiative taken by General Burns, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether this initiative, if it is successful in the early stages, might extend to a reconsideration of this whole most unsatisfactory truce line?

Sir A. Eden: I should like to consider that question on the Paper, because General Burns' initiative is, of course, his own, although warmly welcomed by us, and I do not think I ought to say more.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary-General of the United Nations on whether it might be useful to strengthen General Burns' personnel?

Sir A. Eden: Yes, Sir; that has been under consideration, and I would like to write to the right hon. Gentleman about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA

British Traders (United States Regulations)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the United States Government, under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1917, are scheduling as enemy nationals British citizens who have at any time resided in China for trading purposes; whether the protection of Her Majesty's Foreign Office is still extended to those British subjects; and whether he will make representations to the United States Government about their treatment of the persons involved.

Sir Anthony Eden: I have no information that British subjects, as distinct from firms, have been designated as Chinese nationals under the United States regulations.

Mr. Wilson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, who wrote to me last week informing me that one of the people concerned is regarded under these regulations as a China national, though he is, in fact, a British subject? That was said by the Colonial Secretary. Since the United States is at present not at war with China, will the right hon. Gentleman say what representations Her Majesty's Government are making about this Act?

Sir A. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman knows that this arises from a matter about which there has been considerable argument over the years. The regulations were made in 1950, a time with which the late Government were familiar, and there have been many arguments about them. Discussions are now proceeding. What I did not know was that individual subjects have been mentioned in this connection. I shall, of course, consult the Colonial Secretary in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has told me.

Chargé d'Affaires, London

Captain Kerby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what subjects he discussed with Mr. Huan Hsiang during their first official meeting at the Foreign Office.

Sir Anthony Eden: Mr. Huan Hsiang called upon me on 3rd November to present his credentials as Chinese Chargé d'Affairés.

Captain Kerby: Did my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of raising with the new Chinese Chargé d'Affaires the question of Mr. Robert Ford, a British subject who has been languishing in a Chinese gaol for upwards of four years?

Sir A. Eden: That subject has been raised a great many times by representatives of Her Majesty's Government, and I think I have stated before that it was raised during the Geneva Conference. But I am not prepared—and it has never been our practice—to give the House any detailed account of confidential meetings which I have with the envoys to Her Majesty's Court.

ISRAEL (BRITISH PUBLICATIONS)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in preparing the 1955–56 Estimates, he will make provision for a scheme backed by public funds to facilitate the entry of British books into Israel.

Mr. Turton: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend gave to a similar question on 5th April. I regret that the position for 1955–56 does not enable any change to be made which would involve public funds.

Mr. Johnson: Will my hon. Friend look into this matter again, because Israel is being flooded with American books, and there is a very large unfilled demand for British books which they would be very glad to have?

Mr. Turton: The House should take into consideration the fact that Israel is earning about £6 million sterling a year, and it is a reasonable view that she should be able to afford to allocate an adequate sum for the purchase of British books if she wishes to do so. In fact, there is a scheme which is aiding the

export from this country of certain technical and law books. We must concentrate on the essentials at present.

Miss Lee: In view of the conditions existing in Israel at present, does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that a small country which has not been able to budget for its imports and exports should allocate money in this way if it is in the power of the British Government to help her?

Mr. Turton: We have great sympathy with the position of Israel, but we must concentrate on the most essential ways of helping, and this does not seem to be the most essential way.

ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of his recent talks with the Icelandic Government over the fishing dispute; and what progress is being made.

Sir Anthony Eden: No formal discussions have taken place. The Icelandic Government have made no response to Her Majesty's Government's offer, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Supply referred in his statement on 20th May, 1953, to consider at any time any constructive proposals which might be put forward by the Icelandic Government. I am sorry to say that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs discussed the dispute with the Icelandic Prime Minister in August, he was informed that the attitude of the Icelandic Government was unchanged. However, Her Majesty's Government will continue in their efforts to reach a settlement of the dispute, which would take account of the interests of both countries.

Mr. Hoy: Can the Foreign Secretary say what consideration was given to the memorandum submitted jointly by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) following their visit to Iceland? Did not that memorandum provide a basis for some further discussion?

Sir A. Eden: I should like to give further study to that myself.

Mr. Edward Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that public opinion is becoming very restive about this matter? Not only public opinion outside the fishing industry, but some elements inside it are becoming more and more concerned at their lack of full trading facilities; the fact that there is no reciprocal trade between Iceland and ourselves, and the fact that we are losing traditional markets to Germany and Russia. Surely it is possible to arrive at some basis for reciprocal discussions between the two interests concerned?

Sir A. Eden: We have offered to consider at any time any constructive proposals put forward by the Icelandic Government, and have offered to take certain aspects of this dispute to the International Court. It is hard to see what more we can do. In respect of some other countries negotiations are going forward and, on this subject of fishing, we are at the moment hoping to conclude an agreement with the Danish Government upon fishery limits around the Faroes. I do not think blame can be laid upon Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. Bell: Is not the basic difficulty in this dispute the fact that the Icelandic Government, unlike ourselves, have not subscribed to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court?

Sir A. Eden: That is certainly one complication, but there are quite a few more.

Mr. Younger: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that in recent weeks supplies of fish to this country have become very inadequate for the first time since the ban on Icelandic landings? The matter is therefore more urgent now than it has been at any time during the last few years. Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that this is essentially the sort of international matter which should be settled upon the responsibility of the Government, and should not be left to be decided, as it has been, purely by one section of one industry?

Sir A. Eden: I have already given the assurance that the Government are perfectly ready to examine any constructive proposals made by the Icelandic Government. No action has been taken in this country which in any way conflicts with the laws of the United Kingdom.

SAUDI ARABIA (OIL SHIPMENT AGREEMENT)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Saudi Arabian Government in reply to his protest against their oil shipment agreement with Mr. Onassis.

Sir Anthony Eden: The Saudi Arabian Government replied that the agreement was not a breach of any international agreement to which Saudi Arabia was a party, and that the matter was purely within the domestic jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia. Her Majesty's Government have left the Saudi Arabian Government in no doubt of their disapproval of this agreement. They still believe that the Saudi Arabian Government would be ill-advised to put it into effect. This view has been recently reiterated to the Saudi Arabian authorities.

Mr. Hoy: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what other countries have made protests to Saudi Arabia about this agreement? Have any joint protests been made along with ours?

Sir A. Eden: I can say that other countries are closely affected by this matter. Indeed, the United States is likely to be the country most seriously affected. We know that the company which extracts the oil is American-owned. But all the maritime Powers stand to lose by this arrangement, and I should like to give a considered reply.

GUATEMALA (S.S. "SPRINGFJORD")

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what compensation has been paid by the Guatemalan Government in respect of the bombing of the British steamer s.s. "Springfjord," off the port of San José on 27th June last.

Sir Anthony Eden: On 16th October the Guatemalan Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that his Government were prepared to discuss with Her Majesty's Government the payment of a reasonable sum in compensation, and that the new Guatemalan Minister in London would receive instructions to pursue this matter. A claim for compensation, of which the


details are being worked out by the various interested parties, will be presented in due course.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Foreign Secretary telling us that the amount of the claim has not yet been decided? Has no specific amount of claim yet been formulated?

Sir A. Eden: What I stated was that the Guatemalan Government are prepared to discuss the payment with us, and I think that is a step forward. If everything went like that, I should not have so much cause for complaint.

OVERSEAS INFORMATION SERVICES (EXPENDITURE)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a decision has yet been reached in regard to implementation of the long-term proposals in the Drogheda Report.

Sir Anthony Eden: Her Majesty's Government have accepted the broad principles set out in the Drogheda Report and have been most grateful to the members of the Committee for their thorough and valuable investigations. Her Majesty's Government must have liberty to maintain flexibility in a situation in which there are constant new developments. The House will be informed of the provision for the coming year when the Estimates are laid.

Mr. Davies: Can the Foreign Secretary give us some indication of the extent of this flexibility? He said that the Government accept the broad principles, but those broad principles include considerably increased expenditure. Is the Foreign Secretary now committed to that?

Sir A. Eden: The position is that last year we proposed an increase of about £100,000 in expanding the information services. Those expansions will be maintained, and we shall propose some increase in the expenditure next year. How far it will go in new work will have to depend to some extent upon how far we can avoid rising costs. I can tell the House that it is that problem which, perhaps even more abroad than at home, is giving us most concern in trying to carry out our programme.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Soviet leaders are now stating openly that they are preparing for a war of ideas with the non-Communist world, and that, compared with the effort and expenditure which they are making in that war of ideas, the kind of figures he has been talking about are ludicrously small and ineffective? Bearing in mind that we spend £1,600 million upon arms, will he please pay more attention to the need for increased information work overseas?

Sir A. Eden: I am conscious of the importance of our information work overseas, and of the vast sums which the Soviet are spending in that connection, but I am also conscious of the even vaster sums which they spend directly upon armaments.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the Foreign Secretary say that his reply to the previous supplementary question means that the Report of the Drogheda Committee is to be substantially carried out? From what he said, it seemed that that Report was not to be carried out to any substantial extent.

Sir A. Eden: We accept the broad principles. The difficulty lies in the pace at which it can be done, and that is bound to be conditioned by the question of cost, which is giving us most concern.

Mr. Davies: Can the Foreign Secretary give us some indication at the earliest possible opportunity of the extent of the programme for the information services, not only in relation to the cost but to the actual expansion of the work which will be done?

Sir A. Eden: As I said, there was some expansion in the present year. What we are able to do in the next year will depend upon how much we are able to achieve success in this matter of keeping down the costs. If we are not successful, the new money will be absorbed by costs instead of by the new work that we want to see.

COAL

Distributed Stocks

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what are the coal reserves for the coming winter.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): On 30th October distributed stocks were 17·4 million tons.

Captain Pilkington: How does that compare with last year's figure?

Mr. Lloyd: It is 800,000 tons lower than last year. We have to remember that there will be a much higher rate of import during the forthcoming winter.

Mr. Woodburn: Will it be necessary, with these supplies, to stagger industry in Scotland and elsewhere during the coming winter?

Mr. Lloyd: I sincerely hope not.

Imports

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal has been imported this year to the latest convenient date; how much has been contracted for, to arrive before the end of this calendar year; how much of the imports are house coal, and how much otherwise; and how much forms the subject of dollar expenditure, and how much otherwise.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Up to the end of October about 2 million tons, including some 1¼ million tons of large coal which directly or indirectly assisted the house coal market and some ¼ million tons of coal costing dollars. About 1 million tons are expected to arrive before the end of the calendar year, of which about one half will be large coal and some ¼ million tons will cost dollars.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps have been taken, or are being taken, to buy surplus United States coal for sterling; and whether all purchases of United States coal, to date, have been made for dollars or otherwise.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The answer to the first part of the Question is "None" and to the second part "For dollars."

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we have been recently engaged in buying surplus American canned fruit for sterling? If we can do that, is it not possible to buy surplus American coal for sterling, for there is a large surplus of coal in America, and one that is likely to continue for a considerable time?

Mr. Lloyd: Should there be an opportunity for that, I shall certainly not miss it.

ELECTRICITY (SUB-AREA ORGANISATIONS)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) what general direction he has issued in relation to the disbandment of sub-area organisations in the electricity supply system.
(2) what general directions he has issued that large-scale reorganisations within the electricity supply system shall not take effect without prior joint consultation.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: None, Sir.

Mr. Irvine: Is it not a fact that the procedure of disbanding the sub-area organisation of the London area is likely to have a considerable effect upon working conditions and will result in redundancy? Is that a matter to be dealt with by a general direction? As regards the second Question, is the Minister aware that there are workers in the industry, whose political affiliations are not suspect and who are entitled to be heard, who are of the opinion that the joint consultation that has taken place has consisted of the handing out of prior information, which is not, in the true sense, joint consultation at all?

Mr. Lloyd: I understand this body is experimenting with certain reorganisation with a view to reducing its administrative costs. I am sure we are all in favour of joint consultation, but carrying it out in detail and questions of administrative economy are surely matters for the boards themselves.

PERSIAN OIL

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what estimate he has made of the additional oil supplies that may be made available for the United Kingdom market in the next three years as a result of Shell, Royal Dutch and B.P. participation in the Iranian Oil Consortium, following resumption of the working of the Abadan refinery; whether such supplies for the United Kingdom will be available for purchase entirely in sterling and free from dollar elements; whether


such purchases will be at British coal-parity prices; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Some 35 million tons of Persian oil are likely to become available to these companies in the course of the next three years, but, since their operations are on a world-wide scale, no specific proportion of that total quantity can be properly described as being available either to the United Kingdom or to any other particular market. The companies will purchase this oil for sterling, but operations in Persia will, of course, involve the United Kingdom in some dollar expenditure. No question arises of parity with British coal prices until a sale is being negotiated by the oil companies with a consumer.

Mr. Nabarro: While congratulating my right hon. Friend and my other right hon. Friends upon the success that has attended the negotiations for the re-opening of this refinery, may I ask him whether there is any relationship between this substantial additional volume of oil that will eventually accrue to the United Kingdom market and the policy he has recently announced for continuing with dual firing in so many of our major electric power generating stations?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, certainly, because this increased quantity of oil coming from Persia will greatly assist the general supply situation and, therefore, will make a direct contribution to the solution of the fuel problems of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by the phrase about some dollar expenditure being involved in Persia? Is this the result of the financial agreement with Persia? Will he please explain?

Mr. Lloyd: What I had principally in mind was that in all oil production there is an amount of specialised machinery which comes from the United States, because of their experience of it. There has been also in all the negotiations with Persia a provision for a certain amount of convertibility to dollars.

Miss Ward: On fuel policy generally, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether all these operations involve carrying coals to Newcastle or not? May I have an answer?

Hon. Members: The Minister does not know.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Minister explain whether he anticipates that, as a result of the reopening of the Abadan oil refinery, it will now be necessary to pay Persia additional dollars?

Mr. Lloyd: No. As I understand the position, the oil companies will require to buy from time to time a certain amount of special plant from the United States. That is one side of the problem. On the other side is the provision, as in past arrangements with Persia, that some of the sterling that Persia receives can be converted in certain circumstances into dollars.

MINISTRY OF FOOD

Flour Improvers

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food when agene as an improver will be banned in flour for human or animal consumption.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I am not yet able to make a statement.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that 11 months ago a statement was made in another place that there was about to be a decision shortly? In view of the fact that experiments on animals have shown terrible results, does he not think it is time we now sought to protect human beings?

Mr. Amory: The last time the Committee reported on this matter there was no evidence that agene was toxic to human beings. I cannot take any further step in the matter until I have had further technical advice.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that by experiments on animals it has been proved to be a terrible thing? In view of the fact that other things have been banned as the result of experiments on animals, why not agene, as it has been in 13 other countries?

Mr. Amory: That is one of the questions upon which I am awaiting technical advice. Up to date, the evidence is that it is not toxic to human beings.

Flour Mills

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that Britannia Mills, Kirton Lindsey, Lincolnshire, and at least a dozen other mills in rural areas have been obliged to close down as a result of the ending of Government control; and what he proposes to do in the national interest to arrest this trend.

Mr. Amory: I understand that several small flour mills have ceased production. This is no doubt part of a process of normal economic readjustment following the long period of control and does not call for intervention by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mallalieu: But would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these smaller mills, largely situated, as they are, in rural areas, have been a great benefit to the farming community in the past? Would he not further agree that they are closing down as a result of Government policy—no doubt excellent policy —during the war and subsequently? As that is a fact—if he agrees that it is a fact—does he not think that something should be done by way of compensation?

Mr. Amory: I do not think so. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that it is always sad when small businesses close down, but the point here is that it is doubtful whether these small mills are economic in normal circumstances. During the period of Government control the conditions were abnormal.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Does this mean that in the Government's view there is no room now for the little man?

Mr. Amory: On the contrary, I said I was sorry about this. The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) will agree that it is no part of the Government's duty to keep uneconomic units in production.

Sugar (Storage Facilities)

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Minister of Food what efforts were made to find covered storage space for the sugar imported by his Department in the later months of 1953; and why the accommodation in Liverpool and Manchester was not used.

Mr. Amory: Every effort was made by my local representatives and with the assistance of the Liverpool Docks and Harbour Board, the Liverpool Warehouse Keepers' Conference and other warehousing authorities covered storage for an additional 60,000 tons was found at Liverpool between August, 1953, and March, 1954. Some 15,000 tons of refined sugar were put into store in Manchester during the autumn of 1953.

Mr. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that there is a very strong feeling among warehouse proprietors in Liverpool that not sufficiently keen efforts were made to find vacant warehouse space? Is he aware that I am assured that vacant warehouse space existed at the time this sugar was being stored out of doors?

Mr. Amory: I am informed that great efforts were made, but time was rather short and it is conceivable that all the offers of space which were made were not made in time before the arrangements had to be completed.

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Minister of Food what saving resulted from the storage of sugar in barges in continental ports, compared with the cost of storage in warehouses in this country.

Mr. Amory: The saving is estimated to have been between 10s. and 20s. per ton.

Mr. Thompson: If my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this figure represents a net saving, would it not be a good thing to send all our sugar to the Continent to be stored there?

Mr. Amory: Quite a bit of it is going that way at present.

Bread (Subsidy and Profit Margin)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food whether he will increase the flour subsidy to enable bakers to supply the national loaf at present prices.

Mr. Amory: As indicated in the replies to the hon. Members for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman) and Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) on 1st November, a claim for an increase in the profit margin on subsidised bread has been submitted by the bakery trade and is now being considered.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister make it quite clear that it is not the Government's policy to knock the small baker entirely out of existence? As it is impossible for them to carry on in present circumstances, will the Minister expedite his decision before many of these small bakeries are put out of business altogether?

Mr. Amory: We are very anxious that the small baker should have a perfectly fair deal.

Mr. Bullard: Will the Minister bear in mind the great trouble which arises because of this problem in the rural districts? Is he aware that many outlying country districts are threatened with the cessation of bread deliveries altogether?

Mr. Amory: That point is very much in my mind.

Mr. Gibson: During these discussions, will the Minister make sure that, whatever is done, the price of bread is not increased?

Mr. Amory: That is a separate question.

Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend remind the policy-forming body of the Labour Party of this Question when the Labour Party are following their policy of nationalisation of the flour milling industry?

Bacon Factories

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Food how many applications he has under consideration for licences to expand the capacity of the bacon curing factories; and what new factories are planned or in the course of construction.

Mr. Amory: Since the decontrol of bacon, it has not been necessary to make application to my Department for this purpose. I cannot therefore say what new factories, if any, are at present planned. I know of none under construction.

Mr. Bullard: In view of the fact that no licences are now required, will the Minister see that firms, farmers' cooperatives and groups of farmers who are interested in building new bacon factories are given the fullest possible information about the extent to which it is decided

to expand the home bacon industry? In view of the large sums of money involved in building factories, will he see that they receive information in good time so that they may know whether their outlay is worth-while and may get on with the job, which will necessarily take quite a time?

Mr. Amory: All these are matters for the trade to consider.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is it not a fact that the bacon curing factories as now constituted have a virtual monopoly? Will not my right hon. Friend try to break it?

Mr. Amory: There is no monopoly. My hon. and gallant Friend is at liberty to start a factory tomorrow if he wishes.

Mr. Gaitskell: How will the trade find out what is happening? Is it not the case that until recently there was a serious shortage of curing capacity? Has the Minister anything to tell us about relieving that shortage?

Mr. Amory: I still think that the source of the information as to requirements must be the consumer and the trade can keep more closely in touch with the consumer than can a Government Department. There may have been more pigs than the factories could handle a short time ago, but the position might be quite different in a month or two.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister mean to tell the farming community that, despite the horrible position in which they have been placed by the present Government over the production of pigs, he can offer them no hope whatever that there will be a planned expansion of bacon curing factories?

Mr. Amory: I have no doubt that if the market requires more pigs we can leave it with confidence to the trade to make the appropriate arrangements.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food the proportion of pigs which is now being refused by bacon factories as surplus to curing capacity; and what improvement there has been in this respect in the last two months.

Mr. Amory: My information on this point, which concerns the commercial relations of bacon curers and their suppliers, is not complete; I understand, however, that the number of pigs now


being offered for bacon curing is much nearer to curers' requirements than it was a few weeks ago.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that this decline of which he speaks is due to the fact that farmers have had such a bad deal and have been heavily fined for every pig which was a few lbs. overweight? I have here a return made last week for one litter of pigs, all sent in at the same time. All except one made nearly £20. The exception was 6 lbs. over-weight, and it made £13. In other words, the farmer was fined 22s. for each lb. of pig over-weight. Will the Minister alter that situation?

Mr. Amory: I cannot agree that the reasons which the hon. Member puts forward are responsible for this decline.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Food the average amount of space in bacon factories which was newly licensed in the years 1945 to 1951 and the years 1951 to 1954, respectively.

Mr. Amory: Under a war-time concentration scheme which was in operation until 1949, no increases in the licensed space in bacon factories were permitted and as a result of building restrictions none was possible for two years thereafter. In 1951 an extension of the capacity of existing factories began and by the time of decontrol curing capacity in Great Britain had been increased by about 10,000 pigs a week.

Mr. Crouch: Is it not a fact that had the expansion started earlier, when the number of pigs was increasing—it was increasing from 1951 by about a million a year—we would not have had the position which has existed in the factories during the last few weeks?

Mr. Amory: A substantial part of the recent problem is that too many pigs unsuitable for bacon have been put forward for the curing factories.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that the main reason that so many have been unsuitable is that farmers have not been permitted to send them in to the factories, so that inevitably the pigs have become over-weight?

Mr. Nabarro: Is not the effective answer to this question a rising percentage of grade A pigs sent to the bacon

factories? Has not the difficulty already largely resolved itself, in view of the increasing percentage of grade A pigs which is being sent to the Fatstock Marketing Corporation?

Mr. Amory: I am very glad to see that the percentage of grade A pigs has been steadily rising. I emphasise once again that we also want a very large number of good quality pigs offered to the pork market as well as to the bacon market.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Hostel, Wolverhampton (Tenants)

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Supply if he will give an assurance to the families living in the married quarters adjoining Brinsford Lodge Hostel, Wolverhampton, that the lease of the hostel to the Malayan Government will not lead to the eviction of the families now living in the married quarters.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): We have been fortunate to find a tenant for this hostel. The Malayan Government propose to use it as a teacher training college and the married quarters will be required for the teaching staff. Ten tenants are involved, one of whom has already arranged to leave. No question of obtaining eviction orders against the remaining nine has yet arisen because we hope to find them suitable alternative accommodation.

Miss Lee: Will the Minister say whether his reply means that these families can be assured, in order to relieve their present state of anxiety, that if alternative accommodation is not found they may continue to live in their present quarters?

Mr. Lloyd: The assurance that I can give the hon. Lady is that these cases will be dealt with sympathetically, and we hope very much that we shall be able to find suitable alternative accommodation. It has to be remembered that the bringing in of 300 students and an administrative and teaching staff of some 40 people is of very great benefit to the people of the locality.

Miss Lee: No one is more sympathetic than myself to having colonial students in this country surrounded by a


friendly atmosphere, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this hostel already takes away accommodation in a hard-pressed industrial and mining area, and does he not think that if he could leave these few families in their present quarters that would be a very good contribution towards making a more welcome atmosphere for these students, and at the same time relieve pressure on the local authority?

Mr. Lloyd: I am fully aware of the facts, but several people are concerned— the Malayan Government, the local authority and the Ministry of Supply. I can assure the hon. Lady that we shall try to sort this matter out on a sympathetic basis.

Book (Security Clearance)

Mr. Finlay: asked the Minister of Supply if the investigations are complete concerning the leakage of security information in a recent publication by Lieut.-Commander Lithgow; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. Lieut.-Commander Lithgow's book "Mach 1" contained several items of information about classified military aircraft which would not have been given security clearance had the book been submitted to the security authorities before publication. The breaches of security in this particular case do not appear to be serious, but it should be remembered that the intelligence picture of a potential enemy may be built up from a large number of apparently small items of new information. Therefore security rules are necessary. They were not observed in this case.
I am satisfied, however, that everyone concerned acted in good faith. Lieut.-Commander Lithgow believed that his employers, Messrs. Vickers-Armstrong, were getting security clearance. They and the publishers of the book each thought that the other was submitting the book to the security authorities. I believe that there was a genuine misunderstanding. Messrs. Vickers-Armstrong have expressed their regret and have undertaken to take steps which will preclude a similar event happening again.

Mr. Finlay: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but

will he say what are the standing orders to manufacturers of aircraft and other security weapons about the clearance of books of this character?

Mr. Lloyd: The position is that those concerned with the manufacture of aircraft on the secret list are under a contractual obligation not to disclose information without the approval of the Ministry.

Mr. Edelman: Would the Minister say who, in fact, is responsible for obtaining security clearance in cases of this kind, in order to avoid a repetition of similar incidents?

Mr. Lloyd: The firms concerned are under a contractual obligation to get security clearance from the Ministry, and they are also responsible for all their employees.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Flour Improvers (Report)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health when the Medical Research Council reported on the tests carried out on various flour improvers; when the report was considered by the appropriate subcommittee of the International Standing Committee on Medical and Nutritional Problems; and what are their recommendations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The report on the tests, a purely factual one, was received on 12th March, 1954. The appropriate subcommittee of the Inter-Departmental Standing Committee on Medical and Nutritional Problems discussed it on 27th April, 1954, and agreed that before they could pursue their discussions the Medical Research Council should be asked to examine it further. The sub-committee will meet again to discuss the report when the results of this further examination are available.

Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Lady say when it is expected that this long business will come to an end and the public will know something about this very important matter?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: There is no desire to delay it. The report of the subcommittee was referred back to the


Medical Research Council as this is a matter for very careful medical investigation. We can only await their report, but we hope that it will be reconsidered by the sub-committee in November.

Poliomyelitis

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Minister of Health what evidence has has suggesting that poliomyelitis is spread by flies carrying a virus; and what proposals he has for reducing the number of flies.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am advised that spread of poliomyelitis is usually by human contacts and that spread by flies has not been proved although they are sometimes contaminated with the virus. It is part of the normal work of local authorities to improve fly control by sanitary measures.

Mr. Thompson: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask her whether she is aware of the intense anxiety about the danger of this disease being spread by flies carrying a virus? Is she aware that there are many sources where flies can breed that are neglected both by local and public authorities, notoriously the main railway tracks, which are disgustingly covered with refuse thrown out by passengers, and will she draw the attention of the appropriate authorities to this matter and get something done about it?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The public health aspects of my hon. Friend's supplementary question are matters for the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and I will bring his request to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

HOSPITALS

Beds

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Health the number of hospital beds which have been newly designated in the South West Regional Hospital Board's area during the last 12 months to the nearest convenient date; and the number of beds which have been removed from designation during the same period.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I assume the hon. Member has in mind beds designated for mental patients. During 1953, 185 such additional beds were provided and seven were withdrawn.

Mr. Collins: Is the hon. Lady aware that among that number were 10 beds designated in a hospital which had just closed a surgical ward through lack of staff, and in the region there were 6,000 on the waiting list and 200 pay beds less than 50 per cent. occupied? Will she examine the position, so that where pay beds are unoccupied the number can be reduced for the benefit of those on the waiting list?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Included in the figures I gave the hon. Gentleman were those of 108 in mental hospitals, 40 in long-stay annexes and 37 in a mental deficiency hospital which had previously been used for Civil Defence units.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Health when the additional beds for mental defectives in County Durham will be ready; and where they will be.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Forty-three beds will be ready about the end of this year, and the remaining 100 about next July. All will be at Aycliffe Hospital.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Health how many people are on the waiting list of the Tees-side Hospital Group; and what is the percentage of beds in use as compared with the national average.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Two thousand nine hundred at 30th September. The average bed occupancy for staffed beds in the group for the quarter ended 30th June was 85 per cent.; the national average for staffed beds of the same types was 83 per cent. for the year 1953.

Chronic and Aged Sick, Wales

Mr. West: asked the Minister of Health how many hospital beds are available for the chronic and aged sick in Wales and Monmouthshire and in the Pontypool constituency, respectively; how many chronic and aged sick persons in these areas are receiving treatment in hospital; and how many are awaiting admission.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The respective figures are:

Beds available, 2,293 and nil;
Patients receiving attention, 2,055 and nil;
Awaiting admission, 437 and 20.

Mr. West: asked the Minister of Health what accommodation is available


for the aged who need care and attention rather than medical treatment in Wales and Monmouthshire and in the Pontypool constituency, respectively; and how many aged persons are receiving care and attention in such accommodation and how many are awaiting admission.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The respective figures are:

Beds available, 3,693 and 24;
Aged persons receiving care and attention, 2,981 and 24;
Awaiting admission, 221 and 3.
The total of beds for Wales and Monmouthshire includes a certain number not precisely known for persons other than aged in need of care.

Maternity Wards (Identification of Babies)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce a better system in maternity hospitals to ensure that newly-born infants are not assigned to the wrong mothers.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to restore the confidence of mothers that when they leave the maternity wards of his hospitals they will take with them their own babies, in view of recent incidents.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is a matter of great concern that any such mistake should occur, but everything shows that those which have recently been publicised appear in each case to have been due to the human factor and not to defective systems of identification. My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the various suggestions made but does not consider that central or uniform regulations would assist in preventing error.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the method of slapping on a little bit of adhesive tape and using that as a means of identification is not very satisfactory? Is it not possible to devise a rather more foolproof method for avoiding what is in

many cases a very distressing state of affairs?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member about the distressing nature of these cases, but they are very rare.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How does the Parliamentary Secretary know that they are rare?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Out of 350,000 cases per annum, the methods for identification are generally satisfactory. Investigations now proceeding into the specified cases prove that, whatever the method of registration, these were errors of the human element and not ones that could have been anticipated.

Mr. Hastings: While admitting the dangers of the human element, does the Parliamentary Secretary not think it necessary that there should be a double check in each case? For instance, could there not be two indications signed and affixed to every child to indicate its parents, so that if one label should come off or be lost, or fail to be looked at or get damaged, there would be the other to which to turn?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Major Richard Christopher Sharples, O.B.E., M.C., for Sutton and Cheam.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister relating to South-East Asia exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

HIGHWAY CODE

3.34 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Paper entitled the Highway Code, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th October, and approves the revised Highway Code contained in pages 4 to 26 thereof.
The Motion asks the House to do two things: to take note of the document now in front of it and to approve the Highway Code itself, which is embodied in pages 4 to 26, inclusive, of the document. For the avoidance of doubt, it might be helpful if I reminded the House that the document which we are discussing is the one which bears the words "Second Edition Laid Before Parliament," printed in red at the top of the cover.
The Road Traffic Act, 1930, Section 45, lays down, among other things, that the Minister of Transport of the day shall present a Highway Code, and in accordance with the provisions of that Section Highway Codes have been presented in 1931, 1935 and 1946. The one which I commend to the House this afternoon is, therefore, the fourth in the series, and perhaps it might be of assistance to hon. and right hon. Members if I indicate the processes and procedure as a result of which this Code is now presented.
In 1951 it was felt that the 1946 Code, though it contained excellent material, was not receiving sufficient attention, nor was due regard being paid to it. As a result, my then predecessor referred to the Departmental Committee on Road Safety two points: the question whether it would be wise to alter in some degree the legal status of the code and, secondly, whether, apart from that, improvements could be made in it.
The Departmental Committee, which at that time was presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who was succeeded in the chairmanship at the time of the change in Government by my hon. Friend the hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol, North-West (Sir G. Braithwaite), went into this matter in considerable detail and dealt with its two terms of reference in this way.
The Departmental Committee made a body of detailed recommendations, a

great many of which are incorporated in the Code which I am now presenting. It also, in accordance with its instructions, made a recommendation as to the legal status of the Code. By a majority, it recommended an alteration in the legal status of the Code with a view to giving certain of its precepts a higher legal status. As the House will appreciate, that recommendation of the majority has not been accepted by the Government, and the proposal before the House is that the Code should be approved on the same legal basis as were its three predecessors.
The question whether it is right to give the Highway Code a higher legal status than that originally prescribed by the 1930 Act is a difficult one, on which arguments are nicely balanced. The House will recall the legal status under the 1930 Act. I do not think it is necessary for me to read the Section, because it is printed in page 3 of the present document. On this issue the view adopted by the minority on the Departmental Committee has seemed to us, after some thought, to be, on balance, the wiser one. I particularly commend to the House the view expressed by the three members in the minority, who represented on that body the motoring organisations and the National Road Transport Federation and who included one of the two representatives of the Trades Union Congress.
The minority suggested in the Report of the Committee that
The failure of the present Code—
that is, the 1946 Code—
to achieve the status which was expected was due, not to any inadequacy in the provisions of Section 45 (4) of the Act, but mainly to the acknowledged fact that the Code tends towards vague exhortations instead of clear advice.
If there is conduct on the part of a driver which ought to be made an offence, but which at present does not come within the scope of Sections 11 and 12 of the Road Traffic Act, then the proper course is to amend those Sections and not to achieve the result in a roundabout manner by amending Section 45 (4).
A statutory provision making a breach of the Code prima facie evidence of negligence in criminal proceedings would be confusing because negligence by itself is not the standard by which criminal culpability is judged. It would also alter the law in regard to civil liability, a matter to which he Committee has not been able to give full consideration as it is not within its terms of reference.


Therefore, after some thought, the view which I put to the House is that it is better to commend the Code to the public on the basis of what one might call its persuasive authority than to seek to make it a matter of penal sanctions. On that point, I venture to disagree with the observations made on Thursday night by the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), whose views, generally speaking, on this subject command a good deal of respect.
Having taken that view, I concede at once that it falls to us to take every step that we can to secure that the Code, continuing on its present legal status, shall both in its substance and its language, and in its form and layout, be good enough to command attention and regard on its merits.
The substance of the Code is based on the original recommendations of the Departmental Committee first under the noble Lord and then under my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West. A draft of a Code was prepared as a result of that and was then submitted to about 60 organisations who are concerned with this matter. Their views were taken and in the light of them a further draft was prepared.
The views of individuals, notably the learned Recorder of Newbury, were taken into account, and the Code was then published and submitted for comment by Members of both Houses of Parliament and by the Press. I hope I may be allowed to acknowledge the great help given us by the individual comments of hon. Members and of noble Lords and from outside, perhaps, in particular, of the motoring correspondents.
It was in a desire to pursue that process further that I recently withdrew the edition of the Code which was presented to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who was then Minister of Transport, and submitted this present edition. Perhaps a little undue attention was caused by that withdrawal in the minds of those less familiar than hon. Members with our Parliamentary procedure. It was necessary, if any amendment was to be made in the document presented to Parliament, and it was to submit to that Parliamentary procedure that I withdrew the earlier document and substituted the amending

one. I will come to the changes in a moment, but I thought I had better explain it because there was a suggestion by some hon. Members that the withdrawal indicated that grave errors had been found in the previous edition.
This process leading up to the present has been followed because I and my predecessors—and several of them are concerned in this—have been anxious not only that this document should be as good as it could be, that it should be based not solely on the ideas of Whitehall—perhaps I should say Berkeley Square—but, on the contrary, should try to take advantage of the common sense and experience of all categories of road users both as individuals and organisations. We have certainly tried our best to get a very high level of common agreement bath from the point of view of keeping us right and also from the point of view of securing its willing acceptance by those who use our roads.
We have also tried to substitute, in accordance with the minority advice of the Departmental Committee, crisp advice for vague exhortation. We have also tried to get the English as good as we could. Hon. Members who were in the House in 1946 will recall that my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade criticised at considerable length the English in that particular edition. In a desire to spare myself a similar experience, I consulted my hon. and learned Friend in advance on the edition and I am happy to acknowledge that he was good enough to suggest to me a number of corrections. They have been followed.
So far as the form of layout is concerned, I hope hon. Members who have the document in front of them will agree that as a matter of typography and production this document constitutes a considerable improvement on its predecessors. I should like to express appreciation both to the Central Office of Information and to Her Majesty's Stationery Office for the great care and trouble which they have taken over this aspect of this matter. I might add that, in particular, the former Director-General, Sir Robert Fraser, gave a great deal of personal skill and attention to the technical matters to secure a good production.
As I have already indicated, there are a number of changes of substance as well


of changes of form both from the edition which Parliament approved in 1946 and from the edition presented by my predecessor this summer. If I may, I should like to take, first of all, the former changes which are, of course, those between 1946 and the present edition. I do not want to weary the House by going through them in detail, but it might help if I summarise more generally some of the more important specific alterations.
As I have indicated, we have tried, in general, to alter the phraseology from advice and exhortation to crisper and more forceful requests. We have tried to alter the production so that colour and various devices of typography should be employed to get a clearer and more arresting effect. An improvement is the table of braking distances, which has been altered, and it has been necessary to bring the passage headed "The Law's Demands" up to date to take into account the changes in the law in the last eight years. Notes on first aid have been added, and there are now footnotes drawing attention to the major cause of accidents and the casualties which result from them.
Coming to one or two examples of specific detail, the House will see that there have been incorporated rules about pedestrian crossings. Rule 4, relating to marching bodies, has been included largely as a result of the tragic occurrence at Gillingham some time ago, and hon. Members will see that it is designed, so far as a code can be designed, to minimise the chances of a catastrophe of that sort. Rule 55 relating to motor-cyclists about to manœuvre is new, as is the rule concerned with vehicles stopping on the roads carrying fast-moving traffic.
As far as the changes from the earlier edition of this year are concerned, perhaps the principal one, and certainly the one which has attracted most attention, is the change in the diagram section about the signal to be given by a driver slowing down at a pedestrian crossing. Hon. Members may recall that in the earlier edition it was suggested that the driver should give the right-turn signal. Hon. Members will see that we have substituted for that the slow-down and stop signal. There was a little controversy at the time, and it was suggested, particularly in urban areas where overtaking on the left takes place, that the signal right turn might

be misleading and might cause a driver to overtake a stopping vehicle on the left and cause an accident on the crossing.
"The Law's Demands" section has been brought up to date, particularly in regard to the rear lighting rules and requests to pedestrians not to walk on cycle tracks, while instructions to horse riders are an additional feature. But, broadly speaking, those are the amendments which it seemed well to make during the Recess, and, indeed, so far as "The Law's Demands" section is concerned I should have been presenting an out-of-date document. The general lines approved by my predecessor have been embodied in the document now before us.
It might be of interest if I said a word now about the plans for distribution if this House and another place approve the Code. It is proposed, subject to the approval of Parliament, to print about 10 million copies, at any rate of the first issue. Of those, about 500,000 will be required for the holders of provisional licences. It is proposed to issue a copy to each driver when he applies for the renewal of his driving licence—that is, a holder's ordinary licence—and that will absorb in all about six million copies.
One million will be distributed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to the older children in the schools. About two million will be on sale to the general public at the price of 1d., and the balance will go to the Armed Forces, the Police, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, road safety committees and other official and semiofficial bodies where it has its obvious use by way of persuasion and advice. As to the timing, again that will depend upon this House and another place——

Mr. James Griffiths: Will there be an edition in Welsh?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have not yet come to a decision on that point. It may well be that it will be thought desirable and I shall be happy to consider that suggestion, subject to the approval of the document by Parliament.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that it would be the unanimous desire of all Welsh Members that there should quickly be published a Welsh edition?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will consider that, but it is not open to me to consider that suggestion until the House has approved this document. I hope the right hon. Gentleman can trust me to consider what he has said because, a little while ago when I was at the Treasury, I paid the Welsh language a compliment by arranging that Welsh Income Tax forms should be printed in Welsh.

Mr. Griffiths: If the right hon. Gentleman learns Welsh he will be paying a compliment to himself.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree that it is a lovely language, but I did not understand the Income Tax form even in English.
Again, if the House approves, the proposals are that those copies should be on sale in February, the supplies to the schools should be available towards Easter, and the dates on which motorists will get them will depend upon the dates on which they renew their licences. The House will appreciate that an elaborate printing operation is involved.
That is a brief summary of the processes and substance of this change. The House will realise that a great deal of care and thought have been given to trying to produce a Code which shall both embody good sense and good manners on our roads and be of practical assistance in reducing the total of road accidents. We have done our best to produce a document which will have the common assent of all categories of road users, and we have sought the advice of almost every section in compiling it. The work has been going on for a considerable time and I hope that we have produced a useful document which will make a contribution towards reducing the casualties on our roads.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: When the last Highway Code came before this House I was responsible, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, for presenting it, as, indeed, I was for much of the work that went into it. On that occasion, I remember well, large numbers of hon. Members, chiefly from the Opposition, took the opportunity of examining its wording with a microscope, suggesting that there were sentences where the English might possibly be improved, and pouring scorn on those

responsible for drafting the Code as a whole. Finally, the House divided on the matter. Naturally, I thought that the Highway Code which I presented was a perfect one, and that the complaints were frivolous.
I remember that incident well and, therefore, when it fell to me to study this document in preparation for talking to the House and expressing the views of my hon. Friends on it, I examined it with particular attention, determined if possible to find things which were wrong, so that I, in turn, might be able to criticise the Highway Code presented by the present Government and, maybe, pour scorn on those responsible.
I must confess that I have failed. Although I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will want to discuss various detailed points in the Code, suggest possible omissions, and suggest perhaps that sufficient emphasis has not been given to one point rather than another, speaking for myself I can find nothing wrong with it, either in substance or in wording. It is altogether an excellent document. I agree, too, with the decision taken by the Government that it was unwise to give the Code statutory force. That suggestion is attractive at first sight, but there are numbers of objections to it, and I know that most of my hon. Friends agree with me that the Government were right in rejecting that advice.
However, I much regret the delay in drawing up and publishing this Code. It has been a long time in gestation, something like three years, and we ought to have had it before. Yet I prefer to have it a little later and perfect than a little earlier and imperfect. And as one who has had some responsibility for drawing up a Code in the past, I congratulate all those responsible for their technical achievement. The advice it contains is expressed in simple, direct and unambiguous English and the document is presented in an attractive way. Those responsible—the officials of the Ministry and the Stationery Office, which was, presumably responsible for the extraordinarily good layout—have done an excellent job and I congratulate them warmly.
It would be fair, too, to congratulate the predecessor of the Minister, the right hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), as he had the Parliamen-


tary responsibly for drawing up the document. My satisfaction with his production of this booklet is considerable; it is in almost reverse ratio to my dissatisfaction with nearly all his other activities as Minister of Transport; and when I say that, I am praising the right hon. Gentleman very highly indeed.
Now I want to ask a few questions about the document. The first is, why has the practice in regard to its distribution adopted by the previous Government been abandoned? We thought it was desirable that every household should receive a copy. It is true that copies will be given to a large section of the population—older schoolchildren, motorists, and so on. Yet there are large numbers who are not motorists and who are not school children but who ought to read this Code, such as old people living by themselves and all the pedestrians who are not motorists. They ought to have it. It is a great pity that the Government are not distributing a copy to every household in the country as did the previous Government, and I hope that someone will tell us later that the old practice will be repeated. Perhaps it is a matter of cost?
That brings me to my second point. The House will want to know what will be the total cost likely to fall on the Exchequer. I do not think that any hon. Member would grudge the expense as we are here dealing with a matter of life and death for hundreds of thousands of people. But the House will, nevertheless, want to know the cost involved. There are a number of smaller points. We are all looking forward to hearing what the right hon. Gentleman will say about the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) about printing the Code in Welsh. I give him the point straight away that the Labour Government finally came to the conclusion that it would not print the Code in Welsh. There were considerable difficulties. But the present Government is supposed to improve on whatever the last Government did and they may agree to my right hon. Friend's request.
Have the Government considered publishing an edition in French? Large numbers of visitors come here from abroad in the summer and drive cars. Obviously, one could not print the Code in every European language, but I should have thought that there was something to be said for printing a French edition

and distributing copies to those motorists from abroad who wish to drive their cars here.

Mr. J. T. Price: What about the American Army?

Mr. Strauss: They are supposed to be able to read English.
In page 31 of the section entitled "The Law's Demands," it is stated that when motorists stop their cars they should switch off their headlights at night but see that the side and tail lamps are alight. We know that that is the law, but it is not the practice in central London. It is a pity that instructions should be printed which are not in accordance with common practice. I know that the Minister is considering this matter. I hope that before long he will tell the House what changes he is bringing about in this respect and whether this is purely a London problem or whether it applies to the provincial towns as well. There are different practices in different parts of the world. Some years ago I found, when I was in California, that it was an offence to leave the side lights and tail lights on when the car was parked.
When the Minister is considering the question of the law's demands with regard to lights on vehicles, will he also take some steps to standardise trafficator lights? I find that the twinkling light is distracting and bewildering. I believe that it is a danger on the roads. I should like the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to consider whether they should not abolish that type of light, which is thoroughly bad, and consider new regulations banning it and making the ordinary stable trafficator compulsory, and none other permissible.
I should also like to know what campaign, if any, the Government propose to introduce at the same time as the Highway Code is being distributed. Will it be merely published and given to the various people concerned, with no intensive publicity campaign accompanying it to draw the attention of the public to the importance and value of the booklet and to ask them, by various propaganda means, to use the Code and to be aware of its vital urgency in preventing accidents? I hope that the Government will tell us that they intend to conduct a big educational campaign to accompany the publication of this document.
There are two good reasons for doing that. One is that in the final Report of a Departmental Committee on accidents, of which I was chairman until 1947, the advice was given that a continual educational campaign should be directed at the public to try to bring about a fall in the number of accidents. It was suggested that although it should be continual it should vary in intensity from time to time according to the circumstances. Here is a good opportunity to step up that campaign, making the new Highway Code its spearhead.
Moreover, the present situation with regard to road accidents justifies such a campaign. It is true that the number of accidents is substantially less than it was pre-war. For example, on the basis of every 10,000 vehicles on the road the number of accidents has fallen from 22·5 in 1938 to 10·4 last year. That is a remarkable fall. The number of children killed, although very high last year at 510, compares with 792 in 1938. But the serious aspect of this problem is that road accidents are now beginning to increase again. Last year they were about 10 per cent. heavier all round than in 1952. I believe that this year they are again on the increase.
I suggest, therefore, that it is time that a big drive was undertaken, either by the Government or on the initiative of the Government, to deal with such a problem. I had some experience of such a drive in 1947. The Government started a campaign, using all the resources of the Press, hoardings, the B.B.C., organisations such as churches and every device that could be found to bring home to people consciousness of the danger on the roads and the appalling accident rate. It proved its value. Although the number of cars was increasing at that time the number of accidents dropped.
I believe that that was almost certainly due to the campaign which was undertaken on the initiative of the Government through the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. It impinged on all sections of the community, through local road safety campaigns, school campaigns, and so on. The Government experts will suggest where it would be wise to concentrate such a campaign now. It may be in the schools. Certainly, something comparable in the way

of a big drive for road safety is called for and here, in the publication of this excellent booklet, there is an admirable opportunity and a basis on which to conduct such a campaign.
I believe that this is a problem which does not derive so much from the inadequacy of our present roads, the number of black spots, and so on. Basically, the problem is how to overcome the carelessness of those who use the roads. The carelessness of individuals is responsible for nine-tenths of the accidents that occur, whether those individuals be motorists, motor-cyclists, cyclists or pedestrians. The problem is how to ensure that there is a permanent awareness in the minds of people of the dangers of the roads and how to make them feel that accidents are not things that happen to other people, but will happen to them if they are not careful.
It is sometimes possible to jerk people into awareness of these problems. If a motorist goes by a spot where there has been an accident and he sees a car piled up he generally drives far more carefully for the rest of the day. He has been shocked into realisation of the danger. I think that it is also true of most of us that when a "traffic cop" passes we say to ourselves, "I must be careful." It was partly to jerk people into that frame of mind that during our safety campaign we issued what was a very unpopular poster with some people, but one which I thought was most valuable. It was known as the "widow poster." It brought home to everybody who saw it that if they were not careful an accident might occur round the corner and they or someone else might be killed.
I do not want to give the Government detailed advice about the extent and scope of any new campaign, but I do believe that the value of this booklet would be 10 times increased if it became the centre of an effective nation-wide drive for the saving of lives. I ask the Government to consider the matter with a view to bringing home to the public as a whole the importance and urgency of this question of road accidents. The numbers of people killed on the roads are terrible, and this document, so admirably designed for its purpose, might, if it became the focal point of a campaign such as I suggest, save thousands of men,


women and children from maiming and death. I very much hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this proposal.

4.12 p.m.

Sir Gurney Braithwaite: My night hon. Friend reminded the House in his introductory remarks today that for about two years I lived with this problem. During that time I had the honour of being the Chairman of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety. Hon. Members may be interested to know the method by which that body worked in order to achieve the results we have before us this afternoon.
Anyone studying the composition of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety would. I think, first come to the conclusion that it contained all the elements of discord on a topic of this kind. With motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, teachers, T.U.C. representatives, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the police and engineering experts, one would expect a composition of that kind to arrive at disagreement rather than agreement on any of these matters. But the Code which is before us this afternoon was subjected by that body, over a considerable period of time, to what we in this House know as a Committee stage. Every section of the Code was submitted to the most careful examination line by line.
I am sure it will be a great encouragement to the gentlemen composing that body to learn that this afternoon the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), despite all his microscopic activities, has failed to detect any serious defect in the work they achieved. The Departmental Committee on Road Safety cleared the Code on 19th October, 1953 —rather more than a year ago. Since then it has been submitted to 60 various bodies which are invaribly consulted on such matters.
It would be very difficult to imagine any organisation interested in or having a bearing on this important matter which has not been consulted. That is the reason for the time lag since the Departmental Committee disposed of the Code, but, as the right hon. Member observed, it was well worth it to get this greatly improved production. The crispness and conciseness of the style, layout and colour of the publication is a great improvement on anything which has gone before and I

think that the illustrations are easier to understand.
Above all, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the fact that the necessary funds for printing the Code have been forthcoming. May I assure him that it was not always so when I was at the Ministry of Transport. I made representations to the Treasury which received responses of a disappointing nature. My right hon. Friend the gamekeeper has become a successful poacher.
The "Daily Herald" remarked not long ago that the Code was laid and then withdrawn because of errors. I think I ought to say that that comment was hardly fair. It was actually taken back for the amending of the appendices owing to the change in the law governing rear lights and reflectors. Hon. Members may recall a Private Member's Bill dealing with that matter going through the House. It also met a valid criticism, to which the Minister referred this afternoon, regarding the use of the right-hand signal to warn road users not to overtake on a zebra crossing.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Vauxhall make a suggestion about an edition of the Code being printed in French. He may remember that in 1952 we passed a small Bill, the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Bill, dealing with cars coming from other countries. During the Committee stage, on behalf of the Government, I gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) that every motorist landing in our island would be furnished with a copy of the Code. I went on to add that we could not give an undertaking that it would be printed in all the various languages which might be necessary to cover that pledge, but that part of the matter is being looked after and an undertaking to that effect was given.
I should like to take this opportunity —the only one I shall have—of expressing my personal gratitude to Mr. Edward Terrell, Recorder of Newbury, with whom I had several productive talks and whose imaginative ideas stimulated much of our thought on this vast subject.
Of course, the Code cannot do everything. During my time at the Ministry in charge of these matters of road safety nothing caused me greater distress day


in and day out than the numbers of casualties—many of them fatal—to children under five years of age. I remember putting forward a suggestion, which, perhaps, was so simple that it made very little appeal, that the old-fashioned method of having toddlers on reins might do a great deal to prevent them straying on to the highway in the way they do.
I think we are entitled to say that the propaganda of successive Governments and educational work in the schools is bearing fruit in a most satisfactory manner. We live in an age when children can instruct their parents in regard to road safety—I am talking more of pedestrians now—and undoubtedly the schools are producing a new road-conscious generation from which we shall reap the benefit as years go by.
When I was chairman of the Road Safety Committee, the suggestion was made that the Code should have some teeth in it by way of what I would call the prima facie procedure. We recommended that, while failure to observe the Code could not constitute an offence, lack of observance, in the event of there being any criminal or civil proceedings, should be prima facie evidence of negligence by the person involved. I concurred with that opinion and was very hopeful that something of that kind could be done, but I take the opportunity of confessing that I have been converted to the other point of view since that time. The Law Officers of the Crown, with the Lord Chancellor—at that time the Home Secretary—did not endorse our view, and who am I to question such a weight of legal opinion?
I wish to say a word about road accident figures arising out of a point made by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. He pointed out that in 1953 there was a 10 per cent. increase in the casualties. That is a lamentable fact. By the same token, in 1952 there was a 10 per cent. decrease over 1951. We had a very heavy road safety campaign in 1952 which, I think, bore some fruit. The right hon. Gentleman would also agree—having studied this problem himself from the Parliamentary Secretary's chair—that the real trouble is the enormous increase in the number of mechanical vehicles on

the road. I believe that there are about 2 million more than when he was at the Ministry and that they have been increasing by a quarter of a million every year.
There is a tendency, a natural tendency, for the casualty figures to rise with the number of vehicles. That tempts one into another field, the necessity for a road construction campaign, which it would be out of order to discuss now, but I read in the Press that there are signs of such a decision. It only remains for me to wish success to the new Highway Code and to express the hope that the House will this afternoon see fit to give its approval nemine contradicente.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. George Isaacs: I wish to put one or two points to the Minister and to begin by joining in the praise which has been expressed for the drafting of this Code. Some time ago, when I saw the original draft, I put a Question to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I think he will remember that I said I thought it was a great improvement on the old one. In my opinion, it would be wise if magistrates who have to deal with motoring cases were given a copy of the Code. Up to the present, members of my own bench have all had copies. The Code is important, not only to road users, but to those who have to deal with accusations of bad conduct on the road.
I am disappointed—I do not put it any higher than that—at the absence of one thing in the Code. Paragraph 37 states:
At a road junction, give way to the traffic on the major road. If in doubt, give way.
No guidance is given in a case where there are two major roads, or where two major roads converge, which gives rise to considerable trouble.
I find that when the police have investigated an accident, and decided which of the persons concerned should be prosecuted, and the case comes to court, it does not take long for a clever defending counsel to raise all sorts of doubts about whether his client should be prosecuted or the other man. It is in such cases that the Highway Code is of considerable value because, when the magistrates retire to consider the whole matter, they derive a great deal of help from the terms of the Highway Code. Very often the actual wording of the Code is helpful and resolves a difficulty.
In many other lands the rule is that one should give way to the car on the right and that prevents all kinds of trouble. Such a rule operates in the Scandinavian countries and in the East African territories. The only complaints that I have ever heard are from discontented and irritable motorists who say that sometimes one has to wait while several cars go by, but surely that is a good thing.
I would direct the attention of the Minister to examples which may be witnessed in areas with which he must be acquainted from travelling backwards and forwards from his constituency to the House. At Tibbett's Corner there is a roundabout with traffic coming up from the right from Putney Bridge. Fast traffic from Wandsworth comes towards the roundabout, and traffic from the main road to Putney Bridge also comes to the left. What do we find? The traffic coming from London and from Putney Bridge comes together and apparently no one gives way until there is the risk of a collision. The difficulty when travelling from London is that the traffic coming from the right shoots off to the left just as one is moving forward to go along to Kingston. Advice about which traffic should give way under such circumstances would be helpful.
Again, at the foot of the hill going down to the cemetery—I think it rather appropriate to refer to the cemetery in this connection—there is the road coming from Putney, the old Portsmouth Road, and the present London Road. It is only necessary to be at this spot at a busy moment to appreciate the problem for vehicles coming from Putney which have to shoot across the traffic to get to the near side of the road. One has to take the risk of going ahead, and the man following has to decide either to risk passing on the near side or braking, to the detriment of the traffic behind him.
That is the only criticism which I wish to make about the new Code. As the Minister knows, I spend a great deal of time in court dealing with motoring cases. We have four or five every week and always there is this point to consider —there has been a collision, and it is necessary to decide which motorist ought to have given way.
We have heard about the reduction in the number of accidents. From my

experience, I should say that the vast majority of motorists are considerate and courteous, but it is the inconsiderate person who causes the trouble—the man who takes a chance; the man who will come along a double line of traffic waiting at a junction, or the man who cuts in from the off-side. Were one to travel this evening on a busy road between 5 o'clock and 6.30 one would find a great stream of traffic going along properly until somebody cuts in. It is such people who do the damage.
The Minister has had this point under consideration and it may be that the motorists' organisation or some other organisation has given him satisfactory reasons why advice about giving way should not be included. Perhaps he will tell the House. I should like to know something about it. I think it would be a great help if I knew that it was my duty to give way or if it was the duty of the other man. That, also, as I say, would be a great help to the magistrates who have to decide this question. This Code is a great improvement on the old Code, and subject to it being brought to the notice of the public as widely as possible, it will be a great help in the future.

4.28 p.m.

Sir Arnold Gridley: It is such a long time since I ventured to address the House, owing to my absence through illness, that I feel almost as nervous as I did nearly 20 years ago, when I made a most inferior maiden speech. But my excuse, if one be needed, for venturing to address hon. and right hon. Members for a few moments this afternoon is that I have been an owner-driver for about 48 years and that during that time I have driven about three-quarters of a million miles.

Mr. M. Follick: I can beat the hon. Member by a year. I have been driving for 49 years.

Sir A. Gridley: I mention that fact in no spirit of boastfulness, but I thank Providence that during the whole of my journeys I have never yet injured a human being. The only person injured was myself on one occasion, which kept me from the House for a few weeks, and my sum and substance of killing animals is two dogs. I think, therefore, that I may claim modestly that in all that period I have not been a careless driver.
My experience has taught me that, even today, there is far too much cutting in from the left on the part of drivers. During recent weeks, when the traffic in London has been abnormally dense, those of us who have found ourselves in traffic streams travelling three abreast have frequently found that an impatient driver on the left will push forward and cut in to save a few seconds. I think that paragraph 30 of the Code which appears on page 8 might have been put with greater emphasis.
The other day a taxi driver grossly offended in that way. He cut right across me and I had to pull up almost dead, regardless of the traffic, to avoid a collision. At the next traffic lights he stopped and I pointed out to him that he had no business to cross from the left. He politely told me I did not know what I was talking about. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) said about the large proportion of motorists and lorry drivers on the roads who are careful and courteous drivers. But we do suffer from the curse of those who are always in such a devil of a hurry.
This Code is an excellent document and I have read every word of it. I hope that if I had to be cross-examined on it I would pass, at any rate with medium honours. But it is absolutely valueless unless everyone who uses the roads, motorists and motor cyclists, are thoroughly familiar with it, and somehow or other pressure should be brought to bear on those responsible for issuing licences, for example, so that newcomers should prove they are thoroughly acquainted with this Highway Code.
Just consider what the position on the roads will be in three years' time. Every important motor car manufacturer is now laying out millions of pounds—I think over £100 million between them—on new developments which will increase their output of cars. I am quite sure I am not exaggerating when I say that in three or four years from now there will be hundreds of thousands more cars and all types of vehicles on the roads. While it is satisfactory to hear quoted figures of the reduction in the number of casualties, who can be complacent? Are we not all saddened by the fact that the casualties on the roads are still so high? They are

really a disgrace to those who use the roads and who are in any way responsible.
I remember a suggestion that a trial period of a month should be made for impounding the car or the lorry which is responsible for an accident. Of course, that would be almost impossible to do but I would not mind saying that, just as a man who sees an accident is more careful in driving for the rest of the day, so the impounding of cars or lorries would make all the rest of the owners of such vehicles more careful for a considerable time afterwards. I realise, however, that there are many difficulties in that suggestion.
I should like, as an example of courtesy, to tell hon. Members of an interesting experience I had with the police when I was coming to the House some time ago. I was driving from Swiss Cottage to Regent's Park in a long line of traffic when a police car came down on my right in a place where we were approaching a bend and where, if there were oncoming traffic, the police car would be right in the way. As it passed me I blew my horn vigorously and sure enough oncoming traffic caused me to hold up the traffic behind me to allow the police car to come in and be in a safe place.
A few hundred yards further on, it pulled out to the left and I drove on. When I entered Regent's Park I was gonged by this car and thought to myself, "I am going to be ticked off for having been rude enough to gong a police car." However, the driver of the car came to me—I had stopped behind as I should—and he said, "I have stopped you, sir, to tender you my humble apologies for having put you to great inconvenience a few yards back. I was chasing a car exceeding the speed limit but, nevertheless, I know I ought not to have been where I was, and I hope you will accept my wholehearted apology." All I could say in answer to this handsome apology was that there was nothing more to be said. When I arrived at the House I told the policeman at the gate what had happened. He said, "Sir Arnold, every member of the police force is taught to be polite."
In my long experience I think most accidents are due to two causes: one from coming in from the left and the other by unnecessary hurrying on the part of impatient drivers. If I might make one


suggestion, it would be to print on the cover of this Code somewhere in very plain letters "Never hurry when you are driving a motor car, lorry or cycle." That should be impressed on every driver.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I should like to take this opportunity of saying a word or two in appreciation of this Code, which is an excellent production. I should like also to support the contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) that something more might be done to introduce the Code to many more people than is likely to be the case in present conditions.
No doubt the Minister has consulted the excellent booklet on road accidents published by his Ministry, which contends that, while the record for 1952 was better than for 1951, this could have been due to the fact that zebra crossings were introduced and that the attendant publicity perhaps helped pedestrians to exercise greater self-discipline and make drivers pay more attention to the actual use and the driving of their vehicles.
If that contention be so, or if there is any basis for it at all, I believe that when the booklet goes on to say that the accident rate in 1953 was increasing, that was due, perhaps, to the falling away of the attendant publicity on zebra crossings and the rest. Therefore, that would seem to suggest that another campaign of propaganda and education is now necessary in order once again to impress the facts about road accidents on people's minds.
The booklet frankly points out that the improvement in 1952 was about 4 per cent. better than in 1951 and 11 per cent. better than in 1938, but that from 1949 to 1951 casualties were increasing. The figures received to date suggest that they are again on the increase. The actual quotation from this booklet is:
Moreover, the crossings serve as a constant reminder to drivers of the need for careful driving.
If the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary would once again give some consideration to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, I am sure that most hon. Members would appreciate it.
Turning to the document itself, I am glad to find, in page 5, a sentence

addressed to those who use pedestrian crossings. It asks them to be sensible when they step off the kerb, and adds:
Wait for a suitable gap in the traffic so that drivers have time to give way.
Despite the excellent road education in schools, many children still have a false sense of security. They embark on pedestrian crossings feeling that they are immune to accidents. I am sure that the Minister would wish us to impress on all children the need still to see that vehicles are not near at hand when they actually step on to the crossing.
I have been told by a responsible official in Glasgow that although there are fewer casualties there are now more collisions between vehicles at pedestrian crossings. This may be one result of such children as I have described stepping on to pedestrian crossings without giving drivers ample time. Drivers have to brake suddenly, with the result that collisions take place. Has the Minister any information to substantiate that statement about collisions?
I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Sir G. Braithwaite) that drivers can be most inconsiderate. I have drawn up at pedestrian crossings when driving, in order to give pedestrians the right of way. I have actually waited for children to cross although they were still on the pavement. Despite that, other drivers, seeing that there was an opportunity still to pass over the crossing, have done so, thus committing a flagrant breach if not of their legal then of their moral liability. Most of us would wish to dissociate ourselves from that kind of behaviour.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give me any information about push-button pedestrian crossings? There are occasions when doubts arise who has the right of way, and, therefore, both pedestrians and motorists hesitate. Can he give me information about the use of lights at pedestrian crossings to indicate who has the right of way? Glasgow has only two of these devices and would like more, but the cost of installing them is prohibited.

Mr. Graham Page: Does the hon. Member recollect an answer to a Parliamentary Question recently, in which the cost of these push-button crossings was stated to be between £350 and £850 per installation? It seems quite small.

Mr. Hannan: I am greatly indebted to the hon. Member. I understand that the Ministry insist upon having this kind of crossing, but I am informed that there is another method which costs practically nothing. I have not all the technical details, but I should like to know from the Minister whether this point can be substantiated. My information is that the Ministry are now contemplating a step, which I hope they will reconsider, in regard to these crossings.
Glasgow Corporation are experimenting with a "Don't Cross" sign at Queen Street Station. As I understand the matter, the "Cross Now" sign entails a 12-second wait for traffic, and sometimes pedestrians are half way across when the lights change and the traffic begins to move. The city engineer is now asking for permission to introduce a phase which will mean that at the end of nine seconds another globe will go on saying "Don't Cross." There will thus be a gap of three seconds, which, with the three seconds for the amber light, will give the pedestrian six seconds in all to complete his journey. The "Don't Cross Now" sign was permissible under regulations introduced by the then Minister of Transport in 1950, but the Ministry are contemplating the issuing of new regulations without permission to introduce those signs.
Glasgow Police are in favour of the "Don't Cross" sign. Visitors who have occasion to park their cars when they come to Hampton Park to see Scotland beat all corners will know that Glasgow Police still preserve their good humour in spite of the results that we have had there.
I am sure we all deplore the rise in the number of drivers found drunk and incapable in charge of a vehicle. The Chief Constable of Inverness County Police, in his annual report, is asking for heavier penalties for this offence. I am with him all the way on this matter. The Chief Constable says, according to a newspaper report, that people under the influence of drink
were responsible for 14 accidents, but a perusal of the relative reports shows that several accidents were only averted by the action of other motorists.
He goes on to say:
The prevalence of this serious type of offence which is giving came for alarm would

appear to indicate that much more drastic forms of punishment are called for.
I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on 11th May this year for information on this matter. I wanted to know:
How many persons were reported last year, at the most convenient date, for driving, attempting to drive, or being in charge of, a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink; and what is the highest yearly total previously recorded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May. 1954; Vol. 527, c. 60.]
The number I got was that in 1953 1,392 cases of people being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs were reported to the police in Scotland. The highest yearly total previously reported was stated to be 1,130 in 1951, so there was an increase of more than 200. This is a most regrettable feature of our road traffic. It is reprehensible and the Ministry ought to consider this matter at the earliest moment.
I recognise that I have departed a little from the strict subject matter of the Highway Code, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I have strayed. I commend the Highway Code to my hon. and right hon. Friends, and hope that the Minister will consider the points that I have raised.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I wish to comment on the layout of the Code and its presentation in the booklet. In doing so I regret that I cannot be as complimentary as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and other hon. Gentlemen opposite. Many hon. Members have had, and are having, the experience of bringing up a small son. I wonder which of two precepts they would think of the greatest importance in that upbringing—never to remain seated when a lady is standing or never to steal? In short, would one first teach the child to avoid illegality or ill-manners? The answer must necessarily be that first one should teach the child the law.
That is not the answer which would be given by the designers and those who laid out the new publication. They have relegated the legal obligations to six pages of small type at the end of the document. This puts wrong values on the Code as a whole.

Mr. James Hudson: On the very first page of the booklet, on the inside cover, the first statement about children is:
Protect them and train them in road safety.
The first priority is given to this point in the five warnings.

Mr. Page: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but that does not affect my argument that the legal obligations of all road users, pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, children and others, are shown at the back of the booklet in small type. It is generally acknowledged that the three methods of tackling road safety are included in what are called the three E's—engineering, education and enforcement. I suppose that one would include the Highway Code under education.
I do not ask that the terms of the Code should be made enforceable. It has its strength in the provision of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that any breach of the Code can be relied on as establishing liability. I suggest that the arrangement at the end of the booklet draws the teeth of the Code and makes it a somewhat toothless and gummy creation. Not only does it draw the teeth of the Code but it draws the teeth of the law in the arrangement whereby the Code is set out first in fairly large type and, then, after several pages of pictures, the legal obligations are outlined.

Sir Frederick Messer: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if everybody followed the first part we would not need the second?

Mr. Page: Surely in any document directed towards road conduct it would be wise first to say, "If you drive carelessly, it is a crime; if you drive dangerously, it is a crime; if you drive a car when you are drunk, it is a crime." It would be interesting to know in what proportion of accidents an offence has been committed. I should say that the proportion is very high. If one could impress upon the public first those items of conduct which Parliament has laid down to be so dangerous that they are criminal offences, then there would be a great reduction in accidents.
It is right and proper to teach courtesy in road conduct, but that is outside the criminal law covering what is an offence on the road. This complaint could have

been avoided by placing the legal obligations and the Code alongside one another. I do not suggest any amendment in the wording. I merely suggest an arrangement whereby the legal obligations could be married with the paragraphs of the Code. For instance, in page 31 there is the statement, as a legal obligation:
You must not drive recklessly or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public.
In the Code that is covered by the statement:
Never drive at such a speed that you cannot pull up well within the distance you can sec to be clear.
Surely we should first impress on the public the legal obligation and then what is the right code of conduct. That applies to many other paragraphs in the Code and sections in what are termed "The Law's Demands."
Another example is, that in page 30 it is said that a motorist should see that his headlights
…comply in particular with the anti-dazzle requirements.
In section 19 of the Code there is the statement:
If you are dazzled, slow down or stop.
It would greatly strengthen the Code if the legal obligations were given their right values. As they are stated at present I feel that those who read them are likely to lose sight of the legal obligations.
On another point of layout and arrangement, why should Part I, which might be supposed to contain the most important part of the Code, be for the road user on foot? Before the 1946 Highway Code the arrangement was different. The first part dealt with the road user on wheels, but since 1946 the first injunctions have been to the pedestrian. The Minister has told us that there is not to be a house-to-house distribution of this document, so it will be read primarily by the drivers. It seems to me to be putting a misleading construction on the Cede to arrange it in this way.
It might be said that the order of presentation is unimportant, but I suggest that it is vital to arrange the document so that the important parts appear first. We should remember that five-sixths of accidents which occur on the roads would occur if there were no pedestrians at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If those who object to that


statement refer to page 28 of the document "Road Accidents—1952" they will see there an analysis which shows that the total number of accidents was 264,026 of which only 46,758 involved a vehicle and a pedestrian. In only 46,000 out of 264,000 accidents was a pedestrian involved. Therefore, I am correct in saying that Part I of the Code is effective in dealing with only one-sixth of the possible accidents.
Paragraph 18, in page 6, says:
Never drive at such a speed that you cannot pull up well within the distance you can see to be clear.
That seems to me to be a cardinal rule of the road. Paragraph 29 is printed in heavy type. Why should not paragraph 18 be in heavy type? It seems to sum up a great deal of proper driving conduct. It also says:
At night, always drive well within the limit of your lights.
I suspect that the fact that paragraph 18 is not stressed more represents an attitude of soft-pedalling on the question of speed.
My suspicion is increased by reference to the footnotes. I do not know whether the footnotes are intended to form part of the Code. It is true that they appear on the pages of the Code which we are asked to approve, but I submit that they do not form part of it. It is obvious that the numbered paragraphs constitute the Code, and, therefore, it would be in order for the Minister, even though he gets the approval of the House to the Code, to cut out the footnotes altogether.
That is what I ask the Minister to do, and I will give the reason for it. The footnotes deal with figures from 1952. The figures are true for one year only—if they were true at all—and they are already out of date. The footnote at the bottom of page 5 says:
Getting on or off public vehicles without due care contributes to 7,500 accidents a year.
The one in page 6 says:
Going too fast contributes to 7,500 accidents a year.
Is it really suggested that going too fast contributes to no more accidents than getting on or off public vehicles?
These figures come from the document which I have just quoted, the road statistics for 1952. I am sure that the Ministry

know the remarks of both their own Director of Road Research and the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police about those figures in relation to speed.
Dr. Glanville, the Director of Road Research. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, in connection with statistics about speed contributing to accidents, said:
First of all, we must discard as unacceptable the evidence of the police statistics that only a few per cent. of accidents have speed as a contributory factor. Judging the speed after the event is much too uncertain a procedure.
He went on to speak about the great reduction in accidents when the 30 m.p.h. speed limit in built-up areas was introduced. He is perfectly clear that, on the police statistics, these figures are unreliable.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis said in his statistical analysis of road accidents in 1953:
One of the most difficult assessments to make is that of speed before an accident. It is only human for the drivers in an accident to understate their actual speed at the time and unless there is outside evidence, such as skid marks, etc., it may be difficult to prove that speed was an essential factor. This may explain the low place which this factor occupies in the tables relating to vehicle drivers and riders.
Therefore, neither the police nor the Road Research Department place any reliance in the statistics on speed contributing to accidents.
Indeed, looking at the figures, I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that they are thoroughly untruthful. Can it possibly be suggested that going too fast has nothing whatever to do with 34 out of every 35 accidents? Yet we are told that going too fast contributes to only 7,500 accidents out of 264,000.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I wonder whether the statistics have been compiled from reports of police court cases. I happen to be a magistrate, and it seems to me that the collisions which take place almost invariably do so between stationary vehicles.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman exactly proves my case. The police speak of their difficulty in giving the statistics and attributing speed as a cause of the accidents and trying to judge the speed of vehicles before accidents happen.
As a motorist, I hate to admit that speed has anything to do with accidents, but I like to get from one place to another as quickly as possible, and I enjoy driving a high-powered car at speed, and if I am honest with myself, I know that the majority of accidents occur through inability to stop a car in time to avoid an accident. What is that but going too fast? To say that only 7,500 accidents out of 264,000 are caused by going too fast is, to say the least, asking us to stretch our imagination a long way.
I should like now to sum up my suggestions for revising the layout of the Code. I am not asking for a revision of the words of the Code which have been dealt with so very thoroughly by responsible persons and bodies and which seem to be in a very good form for getting over to the public. As to the layout, I suggest that we promote "The Law's Demands" to a more important position, that we reverse Parts 1 and 2 so that the first part shall deal with road users on wheels, that heavy type be used for paragraph 18 and that the footnotes be deleted.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I propose to detain the House for only a very short time as a result of a lecturette which was directed at me the other night about taking too much of the time of the House in dealing with this matter. I thought the questions I had to raise were so important that they deserved the time which I gave to them. However, tonight I can afford to cut my remarks down to the shortest possible dimensions.
I repeat what I said the other night, that I am very pleased with the Highway Code. I realise what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) does not appear to realise, that it is hardly possible to deal with legal obligations in the Highway Code in the way he has proposed. It is laid down in the original Road Traffic Act under which the Code becomes possible that a failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of the Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings. Consequently, we really have to do what the Minister of Transport advises.
We have to regard the Code not as a body of law but as a collection of do's and don'ts; it is a code of conduct, and

we have to make the best of it from that point of view. I support my right hon. Friend in saying that as it is a code of conduct, the arrangements that we make for its publication must be treated as a matter of the greatest urgency. The fact that we are devoting half a day to the discussion of the matter will not, in my opinion, be sufficient to emphasise its importance in the country, where road accidents remain so grave a matter.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that, before this debate concludes, some indication should be given of the steps, on a much larger scale than anything that has been done before, that are to be taken to give proper publicity to this Code among all pedestrians and motorists. Every house in the country contains people who need the protection of this Code.
To return to the point concerning children, on which I interrupted the hon. Member for Crosby, the part of the Code that I like best is the first page, on the inside of the cover, although I observe that in page 3 it is laid down that the
Code, between pages 4 and 26, is issued with the Authority of Parliament.
If the contents on the inside of the cover were also issued under the authority of Parliament, greater point would be added to this publication.
One of the great needs is to bring home to the children, through the schools and parents, the dangers that they constantly face on our roads. I live in a heavily populated area in London. The streets in my neighbourhood, I agree, are not regarded as main roads, but I live in a street near the Oval where cars are constantly driven in order to get away from the main road traffic. From the London County Council flats I see all around me children going on to the roads with toy tricycles and bicycles, sometimes running along the footpath, although I believe that strictly that is illegal.
In my childhood, when roads were nothing like as dangerous as they are now, my parents would never have thought of submitting me to the risks of going out on to the roads in charge of my own machine. Yet in London great numbers of children emerge on to the roads with vehicles that they cannot properly control, at an age when they ought not to be submitted to that sort of risk. Children should only ride bicycles


after they have had effective instruction, not only at school but at home as well. I hope that that very important reminder in the Code, to protect the children and train them in road safety, will be regarded as one of the most important points that we should deal with.
I now come to the matter in which I am especially interested. I am delighted to find that among the five priorities listed on the first page—the inside of the cover—the Government have placed alcohol in the fourth position. I ask for nothing more than that. But I should like to know why the excellent start that has been made by putting that item in the fourth place was not continued on the last page inside the cover. From an educational point of view, that last page is one of the best parts of the Code, and I hope that when consideration is given to publicising the Code, the schools in particular will take note of the diagram and analyse it thoroughly, so that every child may understand it.
Hon. Members will observe that a car travelling at 50 miles an hour will, on an average, travel 175 feet before it can be stopped. Of that distance, 50 feet is the thinking distance; that is, the distance of travel before the driver can react to the danger that confronts him. I would point out, however, that it has been proved scientifically that if a driver has taken alcohol that distance of 50 feet is, on the average, increased.
According to the diagram, if a driver is travelling at 40 miles an hour, he travels 40 feet before he can do anything at all, before there is any sign of the car commencing to stop. At a speed of 30 miles an hour the car travels 30 feet before the driver begins to stop it; and in every case if a driver has taken alcohol that distance is increased. The British Medical Association would accept that statement. The Royal Commission, which examined the matter 20 years ago, would accept that statement, and it is embodied in the instructions which are given in the schools.
I should like that point to be brought out in the last page. At the bottom of the last page we are reminded that:
Vehicles other than private cars or small vans may need twice these distances in which to pull up on dry roads. On wet roads, for all vehicles, allow twice the normal margin of safety.

To that reminder I should like to see added, "Remember that if alcohol has been taken by a driver, these distances will be lengthened and the danger condition of all types of cars will be increased."
If those issues are given great publicity through the campaign which I hope is to take place, they will be of advantage to the general public. I hope that when the B.B.C. is approached on this matter, both as regards sound broadcasting and television, the Government will insist that none of the five priorities to which I have referred will be ignored.
I trust also that in the design of the placards—especially as there have been doubts about an excellent placard which I once brought to the House—the danger of alcohol on the roads will remain as a matter of the greatest importance. I hope it will be borne in mind by the community that although we are not laying down legal obligations, this danger has to be eliminated if our people are to have a fair chance of avoiding road accidents.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Alan McKibbin: I support the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) in what he said about blinking trafficators. He called them twinkling trafficators. That may be a more polite term, but it is not so expressive. I think that they are a blinking nuisance. I raised this matter last week in a supplementary question, and my right hon. Friend said that he would consider the matter. I can only hope that he has done so.
A far more important requirement is the standardisation of headlamps. I want to know why manufacturers have been allowed to abandon the making of dipping nearside headlights synchronised with cut-out offside headlights. Most new models provide for both headlights to be kept on. It is very difficult to see whether or not they are dipped and, even when they are, they are still blinding, and cause approaching drivers to switch on their headlights by way of retaliation.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: My hon. Friend should bear in mind that it is extremely dangerous to have one headlight out and the other on when both small sidelights are on, because it


is very easy for an oncoming motorist not to realise that it is a broad vehicle which is approaching him. One may be deluded into thinking that it is a motor bicycle. It was merely owing to the fact that I was uncommonly acute in seeing that snag in time last week that I am here tonight.

Mr. McKibbin: I have been driving motor cars for many years, and I have used both types of headlights. I am sure that 90 per cent. of drivers are convinced that the old system was much better and safer than the new one, which manufacturers are foisting upon us because it is cheaper. The old type of lamp had dipping reflectors; with the new type it is the filament which goes out. It is absolutely wrong that the few shillings involved should be allowed to stand in the way of road safety.
Last Thursday I travelled on a London bus, and I felt very sorry for the driver. Cars with every kind of headlight approached. There were cars with double-dipping headlights; cars being driven with sidelights only; cars dipping one headlight, and motor cycles with single headlights almost as powerful as searchlights. In a well lighted city some arrangements should be made whereby people should drive either with headlights or sidelights on. That would cause far less confusion.
Paragraph 65 of the new Highway Code gives a good deal of advice about parking cars, but one piece of advice seems to have been omitted, namely, that cars should be parked on the nearside. One frequently sees them parked on the wrong side, and this is particularly dangerous when lights are on at night. I want to call the Minister's attention to that point.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. S. P. Viant: When I heard the Minister introducing this new Highway Code I was rather disturbed about his reference to the various sections of the community to whom the Code was to be distributed. I asked myself whether only 10 million people are likely to be affected. We are hoping that by the distribution of the Code we shall mitigate the terrible slaughter and disaster which takes place on our roads day by day. We know that one of the main factors in this matter must be education.
The Code is to be issued and distributed with a view to educating each and every citizen upon points which should be avoided if they wish to avert being slaughtered on the roads. Every household should have a copy of the Code. It affects not only motorists but pedestrians. Some people may not read the Code, but that is no reason why they should not be provided with a copy, and even exhorted to read it.
It is an exceedingly good document; a vast improvement on what has gone before, but we shall fall short of our duty as a Parliament if we do not ensure that every household has a copy. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his proposal in that regard. It may be expensive, but in considering that I would ask the Minister and, through him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to remember the enormous sums which are being taken from the motorists every day, week, month and year.
My next point concerns the fourth of the exhortations on the inside front cover. It reads as follows:
Alcohol, even in quite small amounts, makes you less safe on the roads. Be sure you are fit to use them.
In place of the second sentence, I should prefer something to the following effect: "Be sure you take none when you are about to use the roads." Bearing in mind the large number of accidents which occur because people venture to drive vehicles when they are under the influence of alcohol, this would be quite a reasonable exhortation. Furthermore, I consider that we are entitled to request motorists not to take alcohol when they are about to drive a vehicle on the roads.
It was my privilege and pleasure, about two years ago last June, to open the debate on road safety. I want to give the Ministry of Transport its due for carrying out a number of the promises made on that occasion. It is not often we get an opportunity of candidly thanking the Minister of Transport or other Ministers, but there have been considerable improvements. On that occasion we were about to inaugurate the zebra crossings. They had been inaugurated in certain places, but we had had little or no experience of what their effect was likely to be.
We have now had a quite reasonable length of time in which to judge how the


zebra crosings operate, and I, from my own experience, want to praise them. I think they have been a great help. I am sorry that there has not been included in this Code a suggestion that I made on that former occasion, that a pedestrian, when about to use a zebra crossing, should give warning by raising his hand above his head. If pedestrians were to give that warning, motorists could tell whether the pedestrians were about to cross.
As recently as last Saturday, when I was coming from Harrow, between the lights at one point a lady looked one way but did not look in the direction from which I was coming, and stopped off the kerb. It was with extreme difficulty that I was able to pull up in time. Raising the hand before attempting to cross the road at a zebra crossing would at least give motorists a clue that one was about to do so. What is more important, the action would tend to make us conscious of the fact that we were about to cross the road.
This suggestion does not cost anything. It is a matter of education, and if it were adopted it would become a general mode of conduct. If there is a case against it I shall be interested to hear what it is, but up to now I have not heard any case against it. Even the police, when they desire to hold up the traffic to enable pedestrians to cross the road, invariably hold one hand above their head. I have not heard the case against this suggestion, and I am disappointed that it has not been incorporated in the Code.
When I first heard of the proposals for the Highway Code, and noticed that this proposal was not included amongst them, I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor at the Ministry and suggested to him that it had been omitted by an oversight. I shall listen with patience to hear what the case is against that proposal. If there is not a strong case against it, I hope it will receive further consideration.

5.33 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) that some notice should be given to oncoming motorists by foot passengers

intending to cross the road. I myself always give such notice, and I raise my hat on those occasions, because I am expecting a favour and wish to express my gratitude at receiving it. There is a good deal of uncertainty and dilly-dallying at crossings among drivers, but foot passengers tend to contribute to it, and it could be remedied to a great extent if pedestrians intending to use the crossings were to give a clear indication of their purpose. In this respect, I am in full agreement with the hon. Member for Willesden, West.
I am not so much in agreement with him or with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) in wishing this document to be given away free. I do not believe that things should be given away free. They are only valued accordingly. Things given away free are not valued. This Code costs a lot of money to print. The cost to the purchaser is 1d., but that is not the cost of the printing. For 1 million, this is a £4,000 or £5,000 job, and to give it away free would be a piece of public extravagance. What are we to say of any person who does not think that a handbook designed to save his life and the life of his fellow citizens is worth more than 1d.?
It is very important that the Code should be bought. It should be sold for 6d. rather than Id. Nothing impresses the value of anything on the mind more than having to pay for it. I hope there will not be a free distribution, for that would not only be undesirable but disastrous, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not accept the pleas put forward, no doubt for very good reasons, by the Opposition that the document should be distributed free. It should be an expensive one. Teachers should say, "You will buy a copy of this and take it home."
The Stationery Office should make window displays of the Code. I see that the Code may be purchased direct from the Stationery Office or through any bookseller. Booksellers are having an anxious time, and I do not see any bookseller wanting to sell this handbook at 1d. a copy and without a margin. If it were 6d. retail booksellers, no doubt, would be pleased to buy and sell it to all their customers, especially if they were able to get 13 for 1s. with a discount


of 25 per cent. on a bulk order, but the present selling price will not attract booksellers to advertise it—or the public to buy it. If it were 6d. or 1s. it would be more likely to sell, and to get in the hands of the right people, and would certainly be more valued. I say that because things that are cheap are not valued.
That is a principle I cite on many occasions, but specifically on this. When one wants a railway time-table one buys it. Time-tables are not issued free by British Railways. If one wants a bus time-table, one pays for it; at least, one does in my part of the country. Why should we not pay for this document as well? I hope that my right hon. Friend will not entertain this idea that there should be a free distribution of this handbook throughout the country, and that he will bear in mind that that would reduce its value and cause it to be looked upon merely as a leaflet handed out at a by-election at which the return of the Labour candidate is certain.
I draw attention now to a sentence at the bottom of page 12 of the Code. Many Members of the House, notably the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) have been preoccupied with the subject of drink, which is not one which is easy for us to deal with, but at the bottom of page 12 are some words that should resound throughout the country, because here is a problem with which we can deal. We cannot control irresponsible persons who get drunk, I regret to say. I wish we could. However, we can control dogs.

Mr. J. Hudson: I did not bring in dogs because they are all teetotalers.

Sir W. Darling: The way to the hon. Member's heart is to be a teetotaler. The hon. Member thinks that the first prerequisite of virtue is to be a teetotaler. He will not expect me to share that view.
The words at the bottom of page 12 are:
The presence of dogs and other animals in the carriageway contributes to 4,000 accidents a year.
That is a very serious number of accidents, every one of them avoidable. Some time ago, on television, I spoke on the subject of dogs.

Dr. H. Morgan: Oh, no. Poor dogs.

Sir W. Darling: I had 450 letters. Every one of them was against me The

sacred cow of the British proletariat is the dog. I came forward with the view that the dog is a nuisance, is a possible carrier of disease, and is certainly a danger on the roads.
Since the days of Benjamin Disraeli the tax on dogs has stood at what it stands today, 7s. 6d. I had to advise my right hon. Friend on this matter when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I suggested to him that if he wanted to raise the revenue there was this tax, which stood at the same figure as it stood 50 years ago. I am sure that the lovers of dogs will be the first to agree with me that the carelessness with which dogs are allowed to wander on the highway is dangerous to the dogs and dangerous to human life. If we are a nation of dog lovers, I should like to see that dogs are properly licensed and under control.

Mr. Follick: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is almost equally dangerous to have dogs inside a car, especially large dogs?

Dr. Morgan: What about fleas?

Sir W. Darling: To have a dog inside a car, particularly in proximity to the driver, is probably just as dangerous. I should probably be out of order if I were to pursue this subject very far, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is clear that for safety's sake there should be proper control of dogs by registration and taxation.
Today, the dog is registered at the post office, whereas it should be registered at the local authority offices. The licence fee of 7s. 6d. goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not to the local authority, who tidy up after the dog. The money all goes to central Government funds, although I admit that grants are made from these funds to local authorities.
I should like to see dogs more firmly under control. I see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) is here, and I suggest to him that there is no reason why the dog tax in Kensington should not be five guineas, for in Kensington a dog is a luxury. A dog in Lanark or some other country town could be taxed at 5s.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the hon. Member is developing the question of taxation and is going beyond the Highway Code.

Sir W. Darling: I agree that I am going a little wide of the subject, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I take it that we are allowed to comment upon the extent to which the dog is responsible for road accidents and, if that is so, to what extent it should be controlled. One of the minor ways of controlling things is by charging for them. To discuss giving away the Highway Code for nothing is obviously in order, but charging more for a dog licence, which would have an effect on road safety, is out of order, as I agree.
I come to the subject of bicycles. I drove a car until 1918, when I abandoned it because I was told that my reactions were too slow and that I was constitutionally unsuited to such activities. The House should know that at this point I decided to enter public life. When I drove a car I found that one of the great nuisances on the road was the cyclist. I think that the cycle and the dog on the roads are two subjects which might be considered from the fiscal point of view as well as from the road safety point of view. I know that this is not a popular suggestion; to tax the cyclist and the dog is in the interests of road safety, but it is not such a popular idea as the free distribution of the Highway Code. While it is not as popular, in my view it is just as important.
The problem of safety on the roads must be approached from every conceivable angle. I am at one with the hon. Member for Ealing, North—who rides his favourite hobby horse into every circus that he can find—in saying that the consumption of alcoholic liquor is detrimental to the sensibility which one requires when one is in charge of a car. I expected to hear the hon. Gentleman challenging the statement on the back page which contains a sentence to which, I hope, he will not take great exception:
Do not give a cup of tea or other fluid.
I quite agree that the reference makes it plain that this is concerned with first aid on the road. We are told that apparently it is equally undesirable to do two things—to have alcoholic stimulant and to have
a cup of tea or other fluid.

Thus we note that teetotallers and others are joined together at least on the back page, under the heading of "First Aid on the Road."
I return to my central theme, which is that we should not give away the booklet free; that we should consider the possibility of controlling dogs, unpopular as such a proposal may be; and that we should look at the arch-wobblers of the road, the cyclists.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) will, I know, excuse me if I do not follow his argument. If I did I might be telling some shaggy dog stories. The hon. Member spoke of his own reactions. We know very well that he becomes increasingly stimulated by his own humour. He is never anxious to deal with the subject before the House, but always seems to deal with a subject of his own which amuses him greatly.
I have had a good deal to do with motor cars for many years, and I am glad that this booklet is called a Highway Code. I disagree with the suggestion that, in the main, it should enumerate the laws on the subject. I recall a man who, in his home, was most fastidious, careful, quiet and patient, and who took hours to do the most simple job. Once he was in his motor car and on the road, he was a maniac; everybody was too slow and he cursed them in a most frightful fashion. To handle a car well on the road demands not laws and regulations but character, competence, courtesy and good behaviour. That is why I am pleased that this Code is a code of behaviour and conduct.
This summer I was driving on a long stretch of road on which I encountered some acute corners, where the road had been well banked. It was possible to take them quite easily at 30 to 35 miles an hour, or even at 40 miles an hour. A mile further on we came across another corner, which was not banked at all. Unless one had one's eyes on the road, one would not notice the absence of this banking. We saw three cars in the ditch. The drivers had come from a good stretch of road, well banked, on to a piece of road which was not banked, had skidded on the wet road around the bend and driven into the ditch.
The first point addressed to drivers of motor vehicles on page 29, is:
Before driving, make sure that your insurance is in order, i.e. that it covers the liabilities in respect of third party risks of yourself, and any other person who may use your vehicle.
I remember borrowing a car a couple of years ago. My wife and I were making a journey. The car insurance was in order, but I had not travelled very far from the house before I discovered that the car brakes would not work. I had to drive for 14 miles on the gears. Yet that car was insured.
I am not a motorist now because I cannot afford to be, but as an engineer I am interested in these problems, and in my view too many cars go on to the roads carrying third party insurance but not fit for the road. I should like to see a Highway Code, indeed, an Act of Parliament, which would strengthen the provisions dealing with the insurance of cars so that each year they would have to be taken in for a thorough inspection before another insurance was issued. Some cars on the roads today are 20 years old. Some of them are good cars, but I have handled cars within the last two years which are quite unfit to be on the roads.
I remember the circumstances before the war when four-wheel brakes were introduced and when some of us had only two-wheel brakes. I remember the old "T" model Ford with the brake on the drum of the back axle. If the back axle went, one could not hold the car. One could have driven into a house or into a brook when the brake went. In those days, once we lost the brake of the old "T" model Ford we had finished.
Between the wars, four-wheel brakes were introduced. I remember that the old 1923 bull-nosed Morris had four-wheel brakes. We did not have them and we should have run into the back of the preceding car if we had been driving too close to it. That sort of thing has passed, because all cars have four-wheel brakes, but we still have accidents because the car in front has good brakes while the car behind has no brakes or brakes which have not been inspected for a year or two. We know that some motorists do not bother or cannot afford to have their cars overhauled, and even when they take them into garages to have them overhauled the people in the garages do not always overhaul them. Time and

again cars are taken in for overhaul, but a thorough overhaul is not carried out.
In my view, the answer to all this is that when an application is made each year for the renewal of a car insurance, that car should be taken for inspection and should be passed as fit for the road. I believe that is the main answer to the problem.
I want to support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North on the question of alcohol. At a recent social function, I was pleased to see two gentlemen there who refused to take a drink all the evening. They were asked to have a couple of drinks before they left, but each had a car and each said, "No." They said that when they were going to drive a car, they never took a drink. I complimented them. When one goes round the country, one sees road-houses with dozens of cars and coaches outside, and there is no doubt that excessive drinking of alcohol, or even the drinking of alcohol in small amounts, affects a driver's reactions and causes many road accidents.
On the question of clogs, which was raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, I think it is important that in built-up areas we should ask people to keep their dogs on leads. I lost a dog of my own through not doing so. It was my own neglect. A child plays with a ball, a dog runs into the road after the ball—and the dog is run over. It may be that on a wet road the car skids and mounts the pavement. It is very dangerous for dogs to be running loose on the roads. In built-up areas, people should be strongly exhorted to keep their dogs on leads and not allow them out alone in the streets.

Sir G. Braithwaite: If people would look, they would find the necessary exhortation on the back of their dog licences.

Mr. Bence: I think that this could be brought out a little more strongly in the Code than it is. I wholeheartedly support the Highway Code, and I think it is much better than the previous one. But I hope that the Minister will not take the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South and have this Code printed on special paper, autographed by himself, and charge two guineas for it. I think it should be read


by everyone, because I know that there are docile people who are very placid in their homes and at work but who, once they get into their cars, become almost lunatics.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I have been sent to this House by the electors of Ilford, North, and my constituents are in the front line of the road war. That is so for one particular reason. Through my constituency runs a trunk road. It is one of those areas in which a trunk road runs through a heavily built-up residential area. It so happens—and I am sure that this also applies to other constituencies which are subjected to similar conditions—that on one-fiftieth of the length of the road running through my constituency 50 per cent. of the lamentably high number of accidents which occur take place. When I was invited to contest the by-election in Ilford, North, earlier this year, I went to the constituency to start my campaign and had not been there two days before I had seen three bodies lying on the road in various parts of the constituency, covered with blood.
This debate is thus of great importance to my constituents as well as to others in similar circumstances. It has a particularly tragic relevance for me and for the people of Iford today because it so happens that yesterday evening two elderly ladies, one 70 and the other 75, on their way to church, tried to cross Eastern Avenue—the ancient high road from London into East Anglia which runs through this part of Ilford—and were knocked down and killed by a motor car.
The point to note about that particular occurrence is this: so far as one can see at this stage—and I do not imagine that it will prove to be different—no one was really to blame. The two old ladies looked both ways when crossing the road and thought that it was clear; the motorist came along at, I understand, a reasonable speed; yet there was this tragic and fatal accident. The tragedy is made more fearful by the fact that we know perfectly well that there will be, in such places, many more accidents. We could order the gravestones now for the people who will be killed in similar circumstances in my constituency.
What the House wants to know, and what people outside want to know, is what is the remedy for this intolerable state of affairs. It is all very well to welcome, as we do, this Highway Code. But we must recognise that it is only a minute contribution to the effort which should be made to bring the toll of deaths on the road under control. What is much more important than any code of conduct or any legislation is that there should be improvements made in the actual roads themselves, so that legislation and codes may be operated in reasonable circumstances.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman says that conduct is not so important as roads. When I was a motorist, before the war, I saw a new road being built, and when that road was completed there were more accidents on it than when it was a narrow lane.

Mr. Iremonger: If the hon. Member will follow my argument a little further, he will see that I am thinking very much along the same lines. The point which I wish to make is that it is not enough to lay down general codes of conduct and not enough to enact legislation. What is more important is to provide the conditions in which the legislation and codes of conduct can be applied.
In the case which I want the House to consider now—the case of trunk roads running through built-up areas—what is required are lights, "cross-now" signs, subways and bridges over the roads. Unless these are provided, it is quite possible for every one concerned to do all those things that they ought to do and to do none of those things that they ought not to do, and still for pedestrians to be killed.
I should like to see, in my constituency and in other places similarly situated, more subways and bridges and controlled crossings. And in this connection I consider that one part of the Highway Code which should be particularly emphasised is Part 1, paragraph 9, which says:
Where there is a pedestrian crossing, refuge, footbridge or subway, use it.
I think that there are not enough of these crossings, refuges, footbridges or subways, anyway, but that even where they are provided they are too often not used.
Quite recently a child was killed in my constituency actually on a part of the roadway which had a subway directly underneath it. Therefore, although I do not think that the Highway Code itself is enough, I do think that it should be specially emphasised in the Code that such important provisions for road safety as may be made ought to be made full use of by the public. As it is, there are not enough such provisions made for pedestrians, and this has the result that people cross the roads without expecting facilities to be provided to enable them to do so safely.
I think that the House should urge upon the Minister that although we welcome and recognise the value of this Highway Code, and, in the quaint phraseology of the Order Paper, "take note" of it, we do not think that it is enough, and we do not delude ourselves into imagining that this Code has even touched the fringe of the real problem.
We admire my right hon. Friend's energy, and we should encourage him to use it to do what is really required—that is, to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the claims of his Department for more funds so that money can be diverted to improving roads. It is really a very cheap insurance against the kind of tragedy of which at present I am particularly aware, because its attendant sorrow happens to be sweeping through the streets of my constituency. If my right hon. Friend can get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extra money that is required to make the Highway Code have some real meaning and use, he will be paying a very small premium to help prevent numberless tragedies that will otherwise occur. It will be a small ransom to pay to Death for those mothers' children he would otherwise claim.
It is primarily the very old and the very young who suffer death in circumstances which the Government and this House should regard as their responsibility to try to prevent.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I wish to intervene only briefly in this debate with a contribution which, I hope, will be acceptable, in that it is based on personal experience as a driver. First, I would reinforce what was said by

my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) about pedestrians giving a signal before they use a zebra crossing. I really believe that if this were generally done it would make the zebra crossings far safer. When the pavements are crowded with people it is virtually impossible for a motorist to anticipate their intentions. Unless a motorist is to regard every zebra crossing as a sort of "Slow—major road ahead" sign, he is bound to approach it at a normal speed, and in the event of somebody moving on to the crossing he is bound to have to stop very suddenly.
I do not know the actual figures, but I should say that a number of collisions between cars must have been caused because a driver, faced with a sudden decision, has stopped suddenly and has been struck from behind. I have been in that position myself, having been hit from behind when I had no option but to stop, although it was imposible to anticipate that a person was coming on to the zebra crossing.
My second point concerns traffic lights. Traffic signals are an efficient means of controlling intersections, but I think we are much too generous to the motorist in giving warning that the lights are about to change to green. I see no reason why a group of stationary traffic should be given any warning that the lights are changing green in its favour. This is not done in some other countries, and certainly not in the United States, although the practice there varies from State to State and from city to city. Even when there are three-colour lights, the lights go direct from red to green when moving in favour of the traffic which is about to start.

Mr. Iremonger: One great virtue, which I hope the hon. Member will not overlook, in allowing the lights to go amber is that it gives a driver a chance to start moving, so that the people behind do not press their hooters.

Mr. Benn: I hope that the hon. Member, who made such a thoughtful speech, is not seriously advancing a flippant argument like that in favour of his case. We all know the definition of a split second as the interval between the lights going green and the sounding of the horn in the vehicle behind.
The danger arises mainly at night. When a car is coming along an empty road, it touches the pad and turns the lights amber in the driver's favour. He thinks that he can still carry on, and that by the time he reaches the intersection the light will be green in his favour. The interval of amber varies, but is generally, I believe, about three seconds; that is to say, an amber light for one road, and red-amber for the cross-road. One finds from calculations that a car approaching an intersection at night with the lights against it, striking the pad and then proceeding at 30 miles an hour towards the intersection, will be over the intersection before the lights have turned green in its favour.
I have been involved in an accident in exactly the same way. I was driving with immense care. In fact, I was a witness, and the police prosecuted the other driver. I went back to the intersection at the same time of night as the accident occurred and measured the distance between the pad and the lights. I telephoned to the Road Research Laboratory to ascertain stopping distances, average speeds, and so on. I worked out to my own satisfaction, though it was never brought out in court, that even if a driver did not cross the lights until they had turned green in his favour, it was theoretically possible at an intersection with this system to have an accident without either driver committing any offence or having been negligent.
I am not an electrical engineer, but I am sure that all that is needed is a simple adjustment to the traffic lights. In other words, it should be possible to arrange that when lights turn to green they change straight from red to green. When turning to red, however, there must be the amber period to give the warning which is necessary in order to stop. There is the bigger question of whether the three seconds' amber interval is adequate for most intersections. One might be able to argue that it was necessary on very wide roads, where a driver going through on the amber light does not have time to get right across during the amber period. I wish that the Ministry would consider this seriously.
Those of us who drive home, especially when the House has been sitting late, and the streets are empty, find that there is nothing more tempting, on touching

the pad and seeing the light turning for us, than to think that by the time we get to the lights they will change to green. Perhaps the Minister has statistics of the number of accidents occurring at intersections from this cause. If so, it would be interesting to hear them.
I hope that in considering road safety the Ministry will consider particularly the position of the motorist and the necessity for incorporating in the design of new vehicles the experience gained from the older vehicles already on the roads. One feature is the simple trafficator arm which moves up and down. In modern motor cars most trafficators, especially of the rising and falling arm type, are placed slightly behind the driver. It would be a great convenience if they were placed in such a position that the driver at the wheel could see whether the signal was, in fact, operating. At night I can just see whether my little trafficator arm is reflecting a yellow light; otherwise, it is impossible to know whether one is giving the signal. With any older cars, which nowadays are getting somewhat ancient, the arm sometimes dithers a little. It does not always come fully up, and sometimes it falls back before one has made the turn. In the construction of vehicles, therefore, attention should be given to these problems as a means of eliminating unnecessary accidents which are in no way due to carelessness.
It is true that carelessness is the cause of most accidents, but other accidents could be corrected without the exhortation to continue to do the right thing. It is easier, and it is fun in a way, to tell people that they ought to be responsible. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), gave us the benefit of his advice free, although he wants the Ministry's advice to be charged for. We love giving people advice, but there are more concrete possibilities of correcting faults.
Another point relates to the visibility that is available to drivers, particularly of lorries. It is sometimes amazing that drivers of big heavy transport vehicles—that, for instance, with what is called a mechanical horse in front and an enormous trailer behind—can see adequately when they wish to overtake. I do not propose to go into the point at length, but I should be greatly relieved


if the Parliamentary Secretary, in replying, would give an assurance that in this connection the Ministry is in close touch with the manufacturers of road vehicles.
With those three points—signals on zebra crossings; the traffic lights point, which is of the greatest importance, and the constructional question—I add my congratulations to the Minister on producing an excellent Highway Code.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I hope the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the few remarks that I have to make.
It is a curious result of our procedure that the remarks which we make on this occasion and the suggestions and the criticisms which we put forward can have no effect whatever upon the Highway Code we are discussing, because it has to be accepted or rejected by the House as it stands. On the other hand, it may very well have a considerable effect upon the next Highway Code which, no doubt, will have to be published in some years' time in the light of experience.
The criticisms which were made and the wide discussion on the Highway Code in 1946 have borne such good fruit that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) very generously acknowledged that he was able to describe this Highway Code as almost perfect. Let us bear in mind that, although we have to accept this Highway Code as it stands or reject it entirely, nevertheless the value of the suggestions which have been made on both sides of the House will not be ignored in the long run.
The only addition to those suggestions that I have to make is a somewhat unusual one. It arises out of paragraph 69, which says:
If you are riding a horse, keep to the left.
A horse, even the most controllable one, is a somewhat unpredictable animal, even when well driven. It is frequently—and I speak from personal experience—the case that the counsel of perfection might not always be followed in riding a horse. If I may, I should like to give an example. Supposing a rider is going along a road which runs parallel and fairly close to a

railway line. The horse he is riding is not accustomed to see and hear trains rattling by. If the rider wishes to save his own skin and perhaps prevent an accident he will be wise to ride that particular horse on the side furthest from the railway.

Mr. Isaacs: It would be better to leave the horse in the stable.

Mr. Renton: I would not regard that as a counsel of perfection.
If only for future reference, I would suggest that this paragraph in the Code should read:
If you are riding a horse, keep to the left, unless circumstances dictate that you should keep to the right,
or something to that effect. I would say that paragraph, like many other paragraphs in this Code, has got to be interpreted reasonably, and, indeed, the experience of the courts over the years is that sometimes there has got to be a broad interpretation of some of the advice contained in the Code.
When the Highway Code is being revised in future years, I hope that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will be borne in mind. His was a most interesting speech. I do not say that all his criticism should be accepted, but I think my right hon. Friend and his predecessor have done a very tine job in producing this highly original as well as sound Code. Nevertheless, we can always learn by further experience, and the remarks of my hon. Friend were, indeed, most pertinent.
The only other plea I would make is that my hon. Friend the Minister should take very seriously the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall—he probably intends to—to give this Code the widest publicity and, as he has suggested, make it the focal point of a fresh campaign to reduce accidents on the road.
In conclusion, I feel that we should pay a tribute to the vast amount of back-room work which has been done by those not only in the Ministry and on the road safety committees, but in the motoring and pedestrian associations, and all concerned. I sat on an unofficial sub-committee connected with one of the motoring organisations when it was considering this Code, and I remember we


spent a whole afternoon on one paragraph. There were many meetings by many committees, and Parliament today is considering the fruit of all their work. It should be extremely grateful to them.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has not left the Chamber, because I wish to comment on the speech which he made. I was astonished at some of the things he said, and I disagree entirely that this Highway Code is only—to use his own words— "a minute contribution to the problem of road safety and the reduction of accidents on the road. He followed that up by the equally astonishing statement that this is only—again using his own words —"touching the fringe of the problem." He went on to the conventional topic of spending more money on the roads as a solution to the growing problem of the gravity of road accidents.
I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that if this Highway Code were observed there would be a remarkable fall in the rate of accidents without spending another £5 on the roads themselves. After all, this influences the minds of drivers and pedestrians, and it is there that the accidents really take place, because they arise from such things as faulty judgment, failing to be aware of danger, and so on. It is not the failure of the road to carry the vehicles, it is not the failure of the bend to take the car; it is the failure of the car to take the bend, and if drivers exercised more care and observed the rules, then I do not doubt for a single moment, even though more money on the roads would help, that this would prove an essential part, indeed, the predominant part, of the campaign for road safety.

Mr. Iremonger: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, but, in justice to what I said, I think it is only fair for the House to remember that what I argued was that, in the particular type of locality with which I was concerned in my own constituency, Where a trunk road runs through a residential area, it is quite possible for everyone to do everything he or she ought to do, and yet for an accident to take place; and that the only cure for such a problem is physical alterations to the conditions obtaining.

Mr. Houghton: I fully appreciate the hon. Member's point, but I thought it was a little misleading to make a general statement based on a particular question like that of a trunk road running through his constituency.

Mr. Iremonger: If the hon. Member's old mother had just been run down, his approach to this matter might be rather different.

Hon. Members: Shocking.

Mr. Houghton: I will leave the speech of the hon. Member. He is evidently not in the mood to receive criticism of what he said, so I will now address my remarks to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary. I will deal with the points in the order in which they come in the Highway Code.
I do not think we should always leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) the problem of alcohol as a danger on the road. I think the Minister has allowed this matter to be dealt with rather too lightly. I think he should be stern about it. The Code says:
Alcohol, even in quite small amounts, makes you less safe on the roads. Be sure you are fit to use them.
This looks as if one were talking of delicate matters that one's best friend would not tell one about. We want to be quite frank about it and I think that some such words as:
Leave it alone when you are going to drive 
is what we want. There is not the slightest reason why we should not put it that way. The trouble is that many drivers who are unfit for the road believe they are fit for it.

Sir F. Messer: That is what drink does.

Mr. Houghton: What we want to impress on them is that if they leave drink alone when they are going to drive, and then they are unfit to do so, it is not drink that has done it. What would we say if we saw engine drivers and bus drivers coming out of public houses, laughing and talking, and then getting into their driving cabins? We would say it was a public scandal and should be stopped. Yet people driving private cars do it every day in the week.
My second criticism, a minor one, is of the signature of the right hon. Gentleman


the Minister. I am sure he can write better than this. The hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) has said that we have to approve the Highway Code as it stands or not at all. That does not mean that we must approve of this scrawl which the right hon. Gentleman presents to the public as "John Boyd-Carpenter." I think the public are entitled to know the identity of the Minister who has written so attractive an introduction to the Code. I hope he will do something about that, but if to write his signature more legibly is beyond him, may I suggest that he has it printed?
I pass next to page 9, "Extra Rules For Pedal Cyclists." I am sure that all motorists will, at different times, have noticed that the pedal cyclist does not always glance behind, but merely puts out his hand and then turns. Sometimes I think cyclists scarcely realise how near to an accident they have been. It seems a pity, therefore, not to have emphasised that point, since it seems to be so little used by cyclists as a safeguard.
Another thing I notice is the absence of any words to motor-cyclists. They ought to be warned against weaving their way in and out of traffic, cutting in from the left and then the right, and regarding any line of driving as proper to them as long as there happen to be two or three feet to spare. Motor-cyclists cause much risk to motorists as well as to themselves, and there ought to be special mention of their responsibilities, because they are more manoeuverable on the road and should take greater care in consequence.
My next point arises on page 25, which gives examples of "Signs Which Inform." Here I detect the nationality of the Parliamentary Secretary. He is a Derbyshire man, like myself, but does he really want a lot of people ringing up the Ministry to ask how to pronounce "Uttoxeter"? After all, the Minister is presenting an example which will interest people, and while they will know about Nottingham, Ashbourne and Buxton, Uttoxeter is a problem for the ordinary person. The Minister, therefore, might have chosen a place with a more obvious pronunciation. However, that again is a minor criticism.
Now I turn to the next page. Cannot Her Majesty's Stationery Office do any better with the reproduction of the amber

colour? This is not amber, it is pale yellow, and in the picture where the amber stands alone, it is hardly noticeable. I should have thought that a better colour could have been given to us there.
Finally, in regard to "The Law's Demands," in page 27, I appreciate the view expressed from this side of the House that this is a Highway Code and not a statement on the law; it is intended to get co-operation, it is not a peremptory warning to everybody, it is not a "stand and deliver" document. It is purposely a psychological approach, and I agree with that, though it is proper before the document ends to say something about the law, because the law stands behind a great deal of what is in the Code.
Could we not, then, be a little sterner there in showing what are the law's demands by using heavier print for the "musts" and "must nots"? These are only typographical points. I am sure that the Minister must have a thick file of all the suggestions made by those who have studied the document in draft form. If these points have been considered and rejected, I have no complaint, but sometimes even the casual reader may see something that an expert has overlooked when going through a document thoroughly. We might show a policeman there, so that, after having made the tactful approach, when we come to state the law's demands, we could be more forthright.
Those are my observations on this document. Generally, it is an attractive one. All we need now is closer observation of the Highway Code so that, with the co-operation of all concerned, we may hope to see a reduction in the accident figures.

6.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): My right hon. Friend wishes me to express to both sides of the House his gratitude for the friendly reception which has been accorded to this new edition of the Highway Code. I am sure, also, that those in the Ministry and outside, who have worked so hard to bring this production up to the standard which has given satisfaction to the House, will read with


pleasure the expressions of gratitude of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) opened the debate for the Opposition in a generous speech the tone of which has been followed throughout. Naturally, it is gratifying to us to find that, although seeking conscientiously to discharge the duties of the Opposition, and looking through a magnifying glass at the Highway Code to find errors of form and substance, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he had not been successful and that he considered the production excellent.
The right hon. Gentleman and several others asked why there is not to be a house-to-house distribution of the Code. It is the experience of everyone, and especially of politicians at Election time, that when literature is distributed free and pushed through or under doors, it does not always obtain that careful and respectful attention from the householders which in the case, I am sure, of all political literature it is entitled to have. We feel that a house-to-house distribution of a code of this kind, which after all is not new, would result in a great expenditure for not the greatest return.
Under existing legislation, which might well be regarded as obsolete, we are obliged to sell this production, which costs at least 21½d., for the small sum of 1d. We thought, therefore, that it really would be better to concentrate the money available for this purpose upon those particular sections of the community, including the older children at school, who would be most likely to benefit from receiving and reading it when it was given to them free.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: At what ages?

Mr. Molson: That is a matter which the Ministry of Education will work out. They will be the top ages in the schools. It must be remembered that this initial printing of 10 million copies is not the total that will be printed in the whole of the time during which this Highway Code will be in circulation. If it is desirable, we shall be able to print more. My right hon. Friend will consider the question of printing it in Welsh. I am not sure that we should get a full return if we produced a French edition, but we shall certainly consider all the points which the right hon. Gentleman made.
The right hon. Gentleman, like a number of hon. Members, has urged that we should accompany the publication of the Highway Code with an intensive campaign of publicity on the road safety. We entirely sympathise with that idea. Every year the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, in agreement with the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, conducts a special campaign. We have only just come to the end of a three months' campaign in July, August and September, in which we have tried to concentrate attention on the importance of reducing the number of accidents to children under school age and on the importance of giving proper instructions and efficient bicycles to children who cycle on the roads. No hon. Member has mentioned that campaign, which came to an end about six weeks ago.
I believe that we must beware of constantly urging additional campaigns, because if we are having an intensive campaign all the time it really becomes the ordinary day-to-day work of the Royal Society. We are, however, considering at present a special campaign next year to deal with the important matters raised by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). He emphasised the unsatisfactory condition of a great many vehicles that are on the roads.
My right hon. Friend, in consultation with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, will consider whether, instead of conducting that campaign next year, it will be better to concentrate specially on the Highway Code. We have been in touch with the B.B.C. who have promised us again what they have given so very generously in the past—full cooperation both on television and sound broadcasting in giving the fullest possible publicity to the importance of the Highway Code and good conduct upon the roads.
On an earlier occasion the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) drew special attention to the importance of the Highway Code and I then promised careful and sympathetic consideration to all the suggestions which he or any hon. Member cared to make. That we have done. The right hon. Gentleman has again today made a most valuable suggestion which my right hon. Friend will


be happy to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman gives much of his spare time to a very valuable form of public work in sitting on the bench. He has suggested that we should issue a copy of the Code to all justices of the peace. We shall be very happy indeed to do that.
The right hon. Gentleman was the first of a number of hon. Members to suggest that we should introduce into this country something analogous to the French rule of giving way to a vehicle coming in from the right. That has been considered, but up to the present it has been thought better not to adopt it. It is not as simple in its operation as it sounds, and it was represented to us by some people with experience of driving on the Continent that it led to danger. It is not a plain and simple rule that anything coming from the right has to have priority. There must be some exercise of discretion as to how far away the vehicle should be which is approaching from the right; but our minds on this matter are not closed and at the request of my right hon. Friend I am raising it with the Road Safety Committee at our next meeting on 9th December.
I am sure that we were all glad to hear a speech again after a long interval, from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Sir A. Gridley). We were all very glad to hear of the occasion when the police appeared to have done wrong and had the grace to apologise for what they had done. My hon. Friend's suggestion that a car which had in any way been responsible for an accident should be impounded reminded me of something that I learned as a student of the law. Under the old Anglo-Saxon remedy of "Deodand" anything that was responsible for the death of an individual was declared forfeit. That was only brought to an end towards the close of the 19th century and the last thing that was declared forfeit under that law—in Victorian times—was a steamroller.
The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) made a number of interesting suggestions about zebra crossings. Our new regulation forbidding the parking of a car within 45 feet of a zebra crossing should have some good effect. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) asked whether pulling up at zebra crossings, although resulting in the reduction of accidents to pedestrians, might not

have resulted in a greater number of collisions between vehicles. I have no information on that subject at the moment, but I will make inquiries. If I find any significant information I will write to the hon. Member.
References have been made to drunken drivers, and heavier penalties have been advocated for those convicted of drunken driving. There is a great deal to be said for heavier penalties being imposed by Parliament, but it must be remembered that the imposition of these penalties is a matter of discretion for the justice of the peace. I think that there is a widespread opinion that in many cases discretion is exercised in an unduly lenient manner, as though sympathy was extended rather to the neligent and drunken driver than to his victims.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who, in his snare time from attending this House, is the Chairman of the Pedestrians' Association, did not seem to be quite as satisfied with the Highway Code as most other hon. Members. I did not entirely follow the line of his reasoning. He seemed to think that the Highway Code should devote more attention to restating existing legislation upon the subject; but the legislation which is on the Statute Book does not need any restating. This is merely an appendix to the Highway Code for ready reference and for convenience.
As one or two other hon. Members afterwards mentioned, the purpose of the Highway Code is to draw attention to the importance of courtesy and consideration by drivers. Obviously, they are lacking in courtesy and consideration when they do anything which breaks the law, but there is a great difference between enacting something in an Act of Parliament and being able in fact to enforce it in the courts. There is all the difficulty of having the witnesses and getting hold of the person who is responsible. Civilised society demands a code of decent conduct. It is not only necessary to lay down what is a crime, but also to state the rules of considerate behaviour; and nowhere is that more true than on the roads.
As for putting the guidance to pedestrians before the guidance to those on wheels, I think that that can be amply justified. Everybody is a pedestrian on occasion, but not everybody is a motorist. At the risk of deeply offending the


Chairman of the Pedestrians' Association, I would be inclined to say that a larger proportion of the motorists of the country than of the pedestrians are familiar with the rules of the Highway Code.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) was good enough once again to express his satisfaction at the wording we used with regard to alcohol. When subsequently the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) expressed his dissatisfaction, I said to myself, "Well, having at long last got as far as obtaining the approval and support of the hon. Member for Ealing, North surely we have gone far enough."

Mr. J. Hudson: I think I ought to say that I could go a great deal further than I did tonight, but I was anxious to appear in as reasonable a guise as was possible. At the same time, I believe that I am being helped by those who point out that further things are still to be done in the matter about which I was giving an opinion.

Mr. Molson: Perhaps I was really unwise to draw attention to this matter. I feel now that the hon. Member for Ealing, North will regard himself as having been convicted of being merely tepid in his zeal to advocate the principles of temperance and this, no doubt, will start him off on a new campaign.
The hon. Member also made a most helpful remark about child cyclists. He said he was quite sure that in his childhood he would not have been allowed on the roads on a cycle—sometimes on a cycle too large and unsuitable for a child —without proper care and attention. As I have said, for three months we have been carrying on an intensive campaign, urging what I know is very hard for many busy women in this country to do —make certain that children under five are never allowed on busy roads unattended and that before children are allowed to ride bicycles on the roads they shall have had some instruction in riding.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) referred to the desirability of a household distribution of the Code and I have already answered that point. I much appreciated what he was good enough to say about zebra crossings and the good that they have already done.

He asked me why we did not recommend in the Highway Code that a pedestrian, before stepping on to a zebra crossing, should hold up his hand. The reasons are twofold. In the first place, if we recommended that a pedestrian should always raise his hand before stepping off the pavement that might come to be regarded as an obligation upon him so to do.
After careful thought we have come to the conclusion that when the pedestrian stepped off he should obtain priority over vehicles in so far as that was possible. I think it would only lead to confusion if we put anything into the Highway Code recommending the raising of the hand of a pedestrian stepping off the pavement. There is, of course, no harm at all in a pedestrian who wishes to do so giving an indication in that way to oncoming traffic.
The other and even more serious reason against such a recommendation is the limit which naturally applies to all zebra crossings. A pedestrian stepping off enjoys priority, but it is essential that pedestrians should use that right with reason and should not step off at a time when it is quite impossible for the oncoming vehicle to stop. It is very largely in order to draw attention to that scientific fact that we have illustrated the table at the back of the Highway Code showing how long it takes for vehicles travelling at different speeds to pull up. It was for those reasons that, after consideration, we decided that, on balance, it would not be desirable to include a recommendation of that kind in the Code.
We all enjoyed the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). I think I have already dealt with most of the points raised in the constructive speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East. I have already dealt with one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. I will go into the matter of lights, which he raised, and write to him about it. We are in close touch with the manufacturers of vehicles upon all matters connected with road safety.
The hon. Member for Sowerby dealt with several matters, some of a serious and some of a more flippant kind. I hope that I have now dealt with most of


the matters that have been raised in this extremely useful and constructive debate.

Mr. Page: There is one point with which my hon. Friend has not dealt—the question of the notes to the handbook. Will he make a comment about the footnotes?

Mr. Molson: I did not mention that point because I found the reasoning of my hon. Friend a little difficult to follow. If the House will turn to page 6 of the Highway Code it will see that paragraph 18 was what incurred the disapproval of my hon. Friend. Although he liked what was contained in it, he thought that it should have been given greater prominence, that it should have been printed in heavy type, thus:
Never drive at such a speed that you cannot pull up well within the distance you can see to be clear.
At the bottom of the page there is a note to which he takes exception:
Going too fast contributes to 7,500 accidents a year.
Having complained that we had not given sufficient prominence to this point earlier in the page, I do not understand why my hon. Friend should wish to remove the note at the bottom of the page in which we emphasise it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Paper entitled the Highway Code, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th October, and approves the revised Highway Code contained in pages 4 to 26 thereof.

SOUTH-EAST ASIA

6.52 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden): I beg to move:
That this House approves the policy of Her Majesty's Government in South-East Asia as expressed in the Agreements reached at Geneva and in the Manila Treaty.
I find it a little difficult to adjust myself to the rapidly changing atmosphere of our debate. We have moved from one form of road safety to a slightly more complicated form of international safety with more rapidity than smoothness. But I will do my best, with the help of the House, to transfer our attention to the sterner matters—perhaps I ought not to call them that, but to me they are sterner matters—of South-East Asia.
The House may remember that at the end of July, when we had a debate, I gave a brief outline of the terms of the Geneva settlement. I could not then give the House a full account of all the conditions of the armistice, because they had not yet come into force. Owing to the scattered nature of the country where the cease-fire was to operate, it was not possible for the information to reach the fronts except by stages. When we last discussed these matters the full terms and conditions of the armistice were not available to the House, but since then all of them have been published in the White Paper, Command 9239, which the House has now had an opportunity to consider.
Hon. Members who have studied those armistice proposals will, I think, agree that in view of the hideous complexity of the situation, both in the field and, may I add, at times at the conference table, they represent a remarkable technical achievement. In the wider political sphere their significance is equally clear. They involved a grievous sacrifice for our ally. France, which we must all deplore, and a gain in manpower and in resources to the Vietminh.
Against this, eight years of bitter fighting were brought to an end; a very real danger of a wider conflict was averted; the independence and sovereignty of Laos and Cambodia were clearly recognised and an arrangement which could not, in the existing military circumstances, be


described as unsatisfactory was made in respect of Viet Nam.
This at least is certain; the terms of the Geneva Agreements were infinitely more satisfactory to France and to the three Associated States than the results of a continuation of the fighting must have proved. It cannot be hoped, by diplomacy, to bring a war to an end without any regard to the military course which it has run, and in all this I agree fully with the remarks made by General Bedell Smith on his return to Washington from Geneva.
The war in Indo-China having been brought to an end by the Geneva Agreements, the next stage is their execution, and this has been a matter of constant concern to Her Majesty's Government. International supervisory commissions, composed of Indians, Canadians and Poles, were soon established in Indo-China, and they have already installed most of the inspection teams, provided for in the agreements. Under conditions of considerable physical difficulty and discomfort they have made an encouraging start in most areas. Our thanks are due to the Governments who have agreed to provide these commissions—a thankless task for them—and to the men who have undertaken this exacting and important work.
The value of the settlement which was achieved at Geneva depends, however—as I said at the time of its conclusion—on the spirit in which the agreements are carried out by the parties to them. So far they have displayed in general a willingness to adhere to the terms agreed. There have been a few incidents, but both in Viet Nam and in Cambodia the withdrawal of controls, the transfer of administration and the movements of population—sometimes on a considerable scale—have proceeded remarkably smoothly.
The House should recall that in Viet Nam not only had arrangements to be made to move tens of thousands of the population from the region of Hanoi to the south, but also a considerable transfer had to be arranged from the south to the North; the Vietminh having in fact had control for several years of considerable territories in the south which under the armistice they are now giving up. This is not always remembered.
In Laos the picture has caused us more concern. Admittedly the task of the international commission there is more formidable on account of the very difficult nature of the country, poorer communications and the sparse population. The commission has been able to settle some of its initial problems, but it is still confronted with a critical task in arranging for the administration in accordance with the terms of the agreement of the two northern provinces of Phong Saly and Sam Neua—I do not guarantee my pronunciation—which the Vietminh had overrun.
I must make it clear to the House that the independence and intergrity of those two States of Laos and Cambodia, are matters of the first importance to us all. They are indeed the test by which these agreements will be judged by public opinion in many countries, and not least in those three countries of South-East Asia.
What information can I give to the House about them? I think I should state first that the military arrangements made in the armistice agreements in respect of these two countries, Laos and Cambodia were, on the whole, fair and reasonable. They allow the French authorities to keep 1,500 officers and N.C.Os. in Laos to train the Laotian Army and sanction the retention by the French of a garrison of 3,500 men over and above this figure.
I do not think any of us thought at the time it was an unreasonable arrangement, but on seeking to re-assert their administrative control in the two northern provinces the Laotian Government base themselves, and in our view base themselves rightly, upon their declaration which formed an integral part of our Geneva Agreement. The Communists in Laos have hitherto refused to recognise the validity of this declaration and they have claimed political as well as military control of the provinces.
However, a few days ago, on 28th October, their representative on the joint armistice Commission in Laos is reported to have declared that the so-called Pathet Lao forces, that is the Communist forces, recognised the Royal Government and that in principle their administration in the two northern provinces was placed under the supreme authority of the Royal Government. Her Majesty's Government


trust that these words represent a modification of policy. But we shall judge of this by the action which follows from the word. In the meanwhile we shall continue to be closely watchful of what happens in Northern Laos.
So much for the execution of the agreements up to date. But that is not the only factor this House has to consider. When we survey the position in South-East Asia, we must remember that the agreements reached in Geneva have in no way diminished the formidable military power of Vietminh, to say nothing of that of their Chinese allies. On the contrary, since the Geneva settlement there has been considerable reorganisation and rapid expansion of the Vietminh regular army. By the end of this year this will probably mean that the Vietminh will have twice as many regular field formations as at the time of the Geneva settlements.
From the relatively small population which they control—some 14 million in all—the Vietminh have already raised more regular troops than either Pakistan or Indonesia, each with a population of over 70 million. I suggest to the House that these figures give emphasis to the comments I made on 23rd June last about the need to provide some kind of guarantee of these Geneva settlements.
I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) at Question time. At that time we envisaged a dual arrangement in respect of these guarantees, a reciprocal international gurantee that would cover the settlement itself, and then a South-East Asian collective defence treaty to balance the existing Sino-Soviet Treaty and the close relationship which, as we know, exists between Vietminh, China, and the Soviet Union.
I hope that nobody is going to say to me "You ought not to organise yourselves in like manner to China and Soviet Russia because everybody knows their treaty is directed only against Japan." I hope that nobody is going to use that argument. In case they should be moved to use it I should like to answer in advance. This is the same problem the previous Government had to face in respect of N.A.T.O.—a Russian alliance with all its satellites, directed against Germany, did not diminish the need for setting up the N.A.T.O. organisation. If

that is a good argument in Europe, it is a perfectly good argument, to me, in Asia.
Unfortunately, it proved impossible to obtain the kind of reciprocal guarantees which we had in mind. This was due to the insistence at Geneva of the Soviet, Chinese and Vietminh delegations that any guarantee given to these agreements must be what they called "collective" and by this, of course, they meant that the guarantee could only work if there were unanimous agreement that it should be put into force—a not very probable contingency. In other words, this introduced the principle of the veto once again and any such arrangement was completely unacceptable to us.
That is why that form of guarantee lapsed and instead of a reciprocal guarantee we now have the final Declaration of the Geneva Conference. In this each member undertakes to respect the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of these countries, that is Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam, and to refrain from any interference in their internal affairs.
At the same time, the United States, in another declaration gave a like undertaking to refrain from the threat of force to disturb the Geneva settlement. Shortly afterwards, statements of approval and support of the settlement were made by Australia and New Zealand and by all the Colombo Powers. We attach great importance to this. I think it is fair to say we worked quite hard to try to bring it about.

Mr. Harold Davies: Was Canada consulted?

Sir A. Eden: Canada knew everything about this at every stage of the proceedings. They were fully informed at every stage and expressed themselves in terms of warmest approval.

Mr. William Warbey: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has quite answered the Question I put this afternoon. Would he say whether any attempt has been made since the conclusion of the Geneva Conference to pursue the idea of a reciprocal guarantee system in regard to South-East Asia?

Sir A. Eden: Not since; because at Geneva our proposal was a reciprocal agreement and we were met by the


answer—I am not complaining about it —that they believe in what they call collective guarantees, which means nothing happens unless every one of their people is in agreement.
In view of that being so it is no use asking me once more, having failed at Geneva, to try once again to bring that about. I see no signs of it but if of course they have changed their view and would like a reciprocal guarantee that would be most interesting, and we could do something about the Geneva aspect. But so far I have not seen any great signs.
As a result, after many months of efforts, all Powers with interests in Asia declared themselves in support of the Geneva arrangements. That much we did achieve and it is something to be thankful for. That was the first part of the work we had to do. But the second part—and no less important in our view —was to frame some collective safeguard against any act of aggression in South-East Asia or in the South-West Pacific.
I want to put this to the House: there are many hon. Members sitting here who have had bitter experience of the lack of any clearly stated purpose on the part of ourselves and other countries in the past as to where we stood on vexed international issues. So far as lays in our power we must see to it that no new adventures are begun on a miscalculation which could lead to war. If it were for that alone I think these Manila agreements would be infinitely worth while.
Let us have a look at the terms of the agreement. The treaty is purely defensive. It is fully in accord with the terms of the United Nations Charter and with the Geneva Agreement. It is essentially a regional instrument to give effect to our existing obligations as members of the United Nations. It does make possible—there is no reason why it should not make possible—preparation of joint arrangements to do this.
We should, of course, have liked to see more Asian States join us at the outset in this essential and pacific task. As I have many times made clear the Asian countries were all closely informed and consulted at every stage of the deliberations, both during the Geneva Conference and in the weeks preceding the

signature of the treaty. We understand, even if we do not fully agree with, the reasons for which some of them have so far felt unable to join with us in signing this treaty.
There is, however, provision for other countries in the area to come into the agreement when they feel able to do so. We hope that once they get a chance to study the terms of the Treaty and to see how it works in practice, some of our Asian friends may change their minds. At the same time, we are resolved that it shall not be merely a paper treaty, or just a statement of principle, however admirable. We hope that when the treaty has been ratified and enters into force it will mark the beginning of a period of real co-operation between the parties to it.
After ratification, the next step, as we visualise it, will be the first meeting of the Treaty Council. At that meeting, arrangements for military and economic planning will be discussed. We have suggested that Singapore might be the site of the Council meeting. We hope that it may prove the desire of the parties to meet there.
I must now refer very briefly to the more important Articles of the treaty, but I will not detain the House long. There is Article III, by which
the parties undertake to strengthen their free institutions and to co-operate
in economic measures,
designed both to promote economic progress and social well-being.
There is Article IV, which we might describe as the real political core of the treaty. Here I must quote from the treaty. Paragraph 1 of Article IV
recognises that aggression by means of armed attack in the Treaty area against any of the Parties or against any State or territory which the Parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter designate, would endanger its own peace and safety.
Each party further agrees that it will, in that event,
act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
Many hon. Members who are familiar with the language of the N.A.T.O. agreements will observe that we have borrowed much from the actual N.A.T.O. language for this agreement.
Paragraph 2 of Article IV is directed against the threat of subversive activities, short of actual aggression or armed attack. Here we are on much more difficult and more controversial ground. This Article provides for immediate consultation between the parties in order to agree upon measures for common defence. This paragraph does not, of course, authorise intervention in the day-to-day internal affairs of any country.
Paragraph 3 of this same Article IV is one to which Her Majesty's Government attach particular importance. It was inserted at our instance and I hope that its terms have been closely studied by those countries which have so far held aloof from the treaty. It was, in our view, essential that any country designated under paragraph 1 should be assured that its territory shall not be turned into a battlefield against its will. This paragraph achieves that purpose by providing that action shall only be taken
at the invitation or with the consent of the Government concerned.
Finally, Article VIII defines the treaty area and also contains power to extend it or alter it if circumstances so require.

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the reply given by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in regard to Article IV applies to all the paragraphs of it? The reply was:
The nature of the action to be taken by Her Majesty's Government would entirely depend on the circumstances in which Article 4 of the Treaty was invoked and on the general situation prevailing at the time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 28.]
I should like to know whether that statement applies to the whole of the treaty?

Sir A. Eden: I should like to read the statement made by the Minister of State rather than deal with one question out of it.
What I have said is quite clear. It is that paragraph 1 of Article IV implies action in the event of some act of aggression. The second paragraph deals with the more difficult matter of subversion, and implies consultation and no more. The third paragraph implies quite clearly that anybody concerned who is not a member of the treaty shall be consulted. Those are the broad conclusions of the scheme. I should not like to give any further interpretation. If the hon. Member will put a Question down on the

point he raised I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. Warbey: I am sorry, but the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs made that statement in answer to a Question. I have read what he said. The essence of it was that the nature of the action to be taken by Her Majesty's Government would depend upon circumstances prevailing at the time. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is the view taken by Her Majesty's Government in applying this Article. It is a very important point.

Sir A. Eden: It is very important, but I have had to deal with a good many international "essences" in my time, and I do not want to deal with this matter by essences. I will look up what the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said and see whether it confirms the essence which the hon. Gentleman described, as I am sure it does. I cannot undertake to reply to interjections on matters of international interpretation in this way. It is stated quite clearly in the terms of the treaty.
I turn to the military part of the arrangement which has to be made, the defensive side of our policy in South-East Asia. The treaty deals with what we may call the disagreeable but essential task of providing for defence. Military measures alone can, in a situation like this, never be enough.
Now we transfer our thought to the economic side of our problem. The House will have noticed the emphasis of the treaty, to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite referred earlier, on the importance of economic measures, including technical assistance. Here is a problem which the House and the treaty powers will have to meet. It arises from the importance of carefully co-ordinating the various economic efforts which are now being made. I want to say a word or two about the Colombo Plan in this connection.
The Consultative Committee of the Colombo Plan countries has just met in Ottawa. Its report has not yet been published, but it will be very soon. My noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who represented us at that meeting, tells me that it was the most important and the most encouraging by far that he has yet attended. Siam, the


Philippines and Japan all signified their desire to join. They were unanimously welcomed. This means that now all the countries of South and South-East Asia, perhaps stretching a little beyond, co-operate within the Colombo Plan. That is immensely important because it steps over all the political barriers or whatever other inhibitions there may be.
I cannot anticipate the publication of the Consultative Committee's Report, but there are one or two details which I can give, and which will interest the House. These countries have set themselves an immense task in trying to meet and fulfil their economic needs, and economic conditions have not always been favourable to them. It is, therefore, encouraging to record that during the past year the members of the Colombo Plan have found it possible to devote no less than £550 million to economic development in this area. That is 27 per cent. more than they were able to do in the previous year.
They received a great deal of help. They received about £100 million in external grant aid. They have also received loans from the International Bank and from other Government sources which total over £22 million. All the same, allowing for all the help given, that is a very remarkable achievement by these countries and a step forward in the economic work.
As we see it, when the Council of the Manila Treaty meets, it will no doubt wish to take account of the work which has already been done in the economic sphere in that part of the world by a number of organisations, the principal being the Colombo Plan. We must take account also of the United Nations Technical Assistance, which is very important, and of United States help under Point 4. That is three different sets of organisations.
I can only say tonight that, in our approach to these discussions under the Manila Treaty, we shall be moved by the same considerations as have actuated us in our desire to help to make a success of the Colombo Plan, to do all we can, technical and otherwise, within the limit of our power to make a success of this treaty. We are absolutely convinced that for the Manila Treaty to be successful it has to do two things: it has to give

the assurance of military security and the positive encouragement of economic help.
This treaty covers South-East Asia. It also covers the South-West Pacific, of which I have said very little. I will only add about that that, so far as the South-West Pacific is concerned, we are always happy in this country about any arrangements which bring us nearer to Australia and New Zealand or bring them nearer to us. As for South-East Asia, there are a number of countries in varying stages of development. This is a part of the world whose future is still in doubt. We have an opportunity to help these countries to develop their own way of life in freedom and in peace. That is all that we seek to do—nothing else at all.
The best, indeed the only way, to do this is by economic help and by treaties which make these countries feel protected and secure. This is what I claim the Manila Treaty does.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman said anything about the American reservation about Communism.

Sir A. Eden: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In its original form the treaty referred to "Communist" aggression. We ourselves, and I think most other countries, thought it undesirable to express "aggression" in that way. Whatever one may think about Communism, my own view is that treaties should deal with aggression and an aggressor, whatever his particular colour happens to be. So, as a result of what I think was a general expression of that view, the word "Communist" was taken out of the text at the request of a number of countries.
The United States position is slightly different. I think that I am right, I will have this checked, and if it is not correct I will have it put right by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary later in the debate. The United States position was that they had certain powers from Congress covering Communist aggression. While they agreed to the elimination of the term from the treaty, to conform with what everybody else wished, they made a statement saying that so far as they were concerned this dealt with Communist aggression. There was a special reason for that. The United States, I think alone of all the States, had not any actual territorial position inside the area.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: The House will be grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the broad statement that he has just given us, not only about the Manila Treaty, but also about the last stages at Geneva and the implementation, so far as it has gone, of the Geneva settlement. I do not propose to say very much about the Geneva settlement, partly because, at the pace at which events move, it already seems a very long time ago and there is very little that I could say that would interest the House, whereas, of course, the Foreign Secretary was able to give us his up-to-date assessment of the extent to which the parties at the Geneva Conference have appeared to be willing to carry out the terms of the agreement.
On the whole, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's account was fairly encouraging. Moreover, the Foreign Secretary will know, without my having to repeat it at any length, that what he and his colleagues were able to achieve at Geneva has, broadly, had the support of all quarters of the House. We were glad that he was able to play the important part that he did in reaching that settlement.
I want principally to spend my time upon the events which have followed, particularly the Manila Treaty. Frankly, I do not really feel that everything which the Foreign Secretary said corresponded closely to the impression one gets when one looks at the treaty in rather more detail. We agreed a number of months ago in the summer that the Foreign Secretary was right in postponing discussions on a South-East Asian security organisation until the result of the Geneva Conference could be known. He did that, and I am sure that he was right. After Geneva he was able to go ahead, and he has told us something of what happened.
We watched these events with a certain amount of misgiving because we knew—we thought that we knew, and we have turned out to be right—what was the likely reaction among all the Asian Powers in this area to a South-East Asian treaty. We thought, as the Foreign Secretary did, and as he said, that without general Asian support a treaty of this kind could at best be of little value. It might or might not be harmful, but at least it could not be of very much positive

value. The Foreign Secretary himself said that in the debate in July.
Moreover, we feared after the end of the Geneva Conference that the American wish to retrieve what had undoubtedly been a diplomatic setback for them in the area might result in something being put together which did not really correspond to the needs of the area and might even have some unfortunate features. In the past, the possibility of a security pact for South-East Asia has often been discussed, but it has never been realised. It was frequently discussed when we were in office, which is now three years ago.
It was never realised, partly because the countries in the area were never willing to go ahead with it, and in those days also because the United States were not willing to take on the necessary obligations. Now the United States have changed their mind, but we can see from the result that, broadly speaking, the countries of South-East Asia have not changed theirs. The situation is very much the same today as it was three or four years ago.
It is not altogether surprising that the result which we now have is a treaty which, to say the least of it, is rather unconvincing and is, as I would argue, in some respects anomalous.
I start my approach to the problem of security in South-East Asia by recognising, quite squarely, that the security of the area is an extremely important matter which cannot be overlooked and that Britain, in particular, cannot possibly escape from her share of responsibility for it. What has to be done to ensure the security of the area at any given time must depend on one's estimate of the threat. Fears of aggression have fluctuated over recent years, and there have been times, perhaps this is one of them, when many people have felt that after the relative slackening of tension, such as at the end of the Geneva Conference, the immediate threat, though perhaps not the long-term danger, of aggression is somewhat less.
The Foreign Secretary himself recognised that there were various ways of dealing with the problem. He referred obliquely to that in his speech tonight, but I should like to quote the words which he used when the Geneva Conference was still in progress on 23rd June. He said:
…we could have a reciprocal arrangement in which both sides take part, such as Locarno.


We could also have a defensive alliance such as N.A.T.O. is in Europe, and, let me add, such as the existing Chinese-Soviet Treaty provides for the Far East so far as the Communist Powers are concerned.
A little later he said:
These two systems, I admit, are quite different, but they need be in no way inconsistent…by refraining from any precipitate move towards the formation of a N.A.T.O. system in South-East Asia, we have helped to create the necessary conditions in which both systems can possibly be brought into being."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1954; Vol. 529, c. 433.]
Those comments were made when the outcome of the Geneva Conference was still in the balance; when it was still perfectly possible that it would end not in slackening but increasing the tension, and when it was presumably expected that if a N.A.T.O. type of treaty were entered into it would include the majority of the most important nations of South-East Asia. Now tension has lowered rather than increased—I would not put it higher than that—and, no doubt partly for that reason, some leading South-East Asian States have not been willing to join a N.A.T.O. type of treaty.
I should have thought that those two facts, which have intervened since the Foreign Secretary's statement, would have strengthened the case against moving very rapidly towards a N.A.T.O. type of treaty. I should like to ask the Government why it is that they felt it necessary to enter into this agreement so rapidly, especially in view of the fact that the Commonwealth was split upon it. We have heard from the Prime Minister that we are about to have a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. Many of us feel that a Commonwealth meeting before this step was taken would have been more appropriate. It is, to put it at its lowest, unfortunate that we should find ourselves taking part in a treaty which, admittedly, includes three other members of the Commonwealth, but to which yet other members are either lukewarm or, to judge from their statements, positively hostile.
Hon. Members on this side of the House are faced with a fait accompli in the sense that we have here a concluded treaty which, as far as I can judge, is likely to be ratified and to come into force. I shall not be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it, despite some of the defects to which I

propose to call attention. I shall not call for a Division for three main reasons. First, even if some of the most important Asian countries have stayed out of the treaty, it is nevertheless true that some have joined in, and it would be rather hard to deny participation in such a defensive treaty to any country which desired to join in. That is particularly the case when three of the countries are Commonwealth colleagues.
Secondly, if there is to be an agreement for possible action, for consultation, and for military and other planning in an area where the United Kingdom is so deeply involved, it is better that we should be a party to it. Perhaps that is even more the case if we have certain anxieties or misgivings about the way in which some of these ambiguously worded Articles might conceivably be used.
Thirdly, even if we do not think that a treaty of this kind, which is based upon an assumption that there may be aggression—and let us be frank; it could really only be Chinese aggression—and which proclaims solidarity in face of it, is the most useful contribution to peace at this moment, nevertheless we do not want to give the impression, which might be given by a negative vote tonight, that if there were aggression we should fail in our obligations—because that is most definitely and certainly not the case.
While, for those reasons, it would be somewhat irresponsible to repudiate the treaty now, it would be equally irresponsible—and this is a fault into which the Foreign Secretary did not fall—to assume that it had achieved anything important; or that it amounts to a policy for South-East Asia. It is rather an extraordinary document. First, there is the important aspect which I shall not labour because it is so well known—the crippling gaps in the Asian membership. Nobody who sets out to read a document entitled "The South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty" would imagine that it was not signed by India, Ceylon, Burma or Indonesia. It is not the sort of thing which its title suggests it should be.
Moreover, if one is to act upon the assumption that there is a real danger of aggression in this area, Siam is really the only one of the most dangerous points which is fully covered by the treaty. The others are all either omitted from it or


are on the periphery, while Indo-China surely occupies as odd a position as any territory can ever have occupied in an international document, namely, that although it is not a party to the treaty it is unanimously designated by the participants for certain collective attentions on their part which, as far as I know, were never solicited.
Therefore, even if one regards this merely as a military bloc, it is noticeably unimpressive. It brings us no real accession of Asian strength and if the objective is to set up some kind of planning machinery among the Western members, who are the only ones who can really make a big military contribution—and I include among them Australia and New Zealand—and to clarify the circumstances in which the Western members might eventually intervene to meet aggression, I do not think it required this treaty; nor do I think that the terms of the treaty make the conditions of Western intervention very clear.
The military protection offered by the treaty being, as I think, so flimsy, I shall press the Government a little further about the Foreign Secretary's other alternative—the Locarno type of treaty. He said that at Geneva he tried and failed to get the sort of reciprocal treaty which he had in mind. In the weeks that have passed since then Mr. Nehru has been taking the lead in talking about the possibility of something upon those lines. His statements have been very general, but he clearly envisages something upon those lines, rather than upon the lines of the Manila Treaty, as a first line of defence.
It is clear that he feels anxieties about the security of this area. One does not need to read between the lines of Mr. Nehru's statements to see that, on his visit to China, he has been pressing for assurances upon every conceivable point which is related to the security of South-East Asia, and one does not go on pressing and reiterating one's requests unless one feels that there might otherwise be some danger of the thing slipping. His attitude is clearly not dictated by complacency, but he envisages the possibility of something different from the Manila type of treaty. I hope that, at the least, this is a matter which the Foreign Secretary will feel can be discussed at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers'

Conference, because, on present evidence, not only are we unsatisfied that this is an impossible thing to achieve, but in any case we do not think that the Manila Treaty is a satisfactory alternative. I do not believe that anyone in South-East Asia sleeps very much easier in his bed as a result of the treaty signed at Manila.
I now turn to Article II, dealing with subversive activities directed from without. The same matter is dealt with in somewhat different terms in the second paragraph of Article IV. As the Foreign Secretary said, Article IV commits us only to consultation in the event of something less than a military attack taking place, and it may therefore be suggested that one does not need to worry because, in fact, consultations can take place on the merits as each instance crops up. What I should like to know from the Government is whether they think that this provision is something new or not. Is it really an addition to the sort of undertakings which we have all already given, particularly in the United Nations Charter?
I think these provisions are open to somewhat dangerous interpretations. When I was abroad recently I noticed an article by Mr. Walter Lippmann, whose views on international affairs I very much respect, on the Manila Treaty. It appeared in the European edition of the "New York Herald Tribune" of 17th September. I want to make a few quotations from it because I think this view, coming from so sober a commentator as Mr. Walter Lippmann is of some interest.
Our latest treaty which was signed in Manila last week is not just one more in the series of collective pacts. It marks a new venture.
So he thinks that there is something new in this treaty. A little later on he says:
It is the first formal instrument in modern times"—
and I call attention to this phrase—
which is designed to license international intervention in internal affairs.
He clarified that in relation to this particular area by going on to say:
The reality is that without committing aggression under any old style pact, much of South-East Asia might by internal revolution be carried into the Chinese sphere of influence.
If that means anything, I suggest it means that this part of the treaty is


intended to deal with acts that would not amount to aggression under the United Nations Charter. I do not know what else can be meant by "committing aggression under any old style pact." If it does not mean that, let use have it straight from the Government. On the face of it, according to Mr. Lippmann's interpretation, it looks as if some people believe that we are here defining a new type of aggression which would not exist under the Charter. He goes on to say:
The treaty establishes a strong legal presumption that if a threatened Government asks for intervention it would be contrary to the spirit of the treaty to refuse it. In the Manila Treaty we"—
he is speaking of the United States—
have acquired an undefined right and an implied obligation to intervene under certain conditions in South-East Asia.
I think that is a very dangerous doctrine. Coming from some people, I would not be worried about it, but, when I see that doctrine propounded by somebody like Mr. Walter Lippmann, I wonder what the interpretation is in some other circles.
The difficulty of defining aggression in such a way as to catch all the indirect methods that can be used to get possession of a country has been well known in both the League of Nations and the United Nations. I think I can summarise the conclusion most people have come to by saying that one must not so much define the innumerable borderline cases which may arise as recognise them when they occur. The international body to recognise them is the United Nations, whether it is the Security Council or the General Assembly. It is not two or three gathered together in some corner of the world picking and choosing which particular type of action they are going to regard as aggression. This, I believe, is the dangerous aspect of this Article.
I should like the Foreign Secretary to note that, unlike Article II, the second paragraph of Article IV does not appear to be limited to subversion directed from without. If one looks at it legalistically, one can get it to cover almost any form of internal revolution, and if one looks at that alongside Mr. Walter Lippmann's comments, the position is disquieting.
This is something on which the British attitude must be clarified. With the recent case of Guatemala in our minds,

where the United Nations was by-passed and proved to be impotent, I think our anxieties cannot be treated as wholly academic, and it is up to the Government to make sure that these Articles are not abused, as it seems to me they might be. Our fears are somewhat reinforced by this extraordinary paragraph about which the Leader of the Opposition asked, the "Understanding of the United States of America," where this distinction is made between Communist aggression and aggression generally.
I dare say that the Foreign Secretary's explanation, relating to the authority given by Congress to United States' representatives, may be perfectly correct. I myself have had experience of the difficulties of reconciling some American constitutional practices with the international requirements of the Charter and other things. It may well be true, but I do suggest that this distinction between different kinds of aggression so clearly infringes the spirit of the Charter that any attempt which may be made at reconciling it with the text of the Charter would be a lawyer's point and nothing more. I hope that there is no significance in the fact that this American reservation appears above our signature and not below it. I should like an assurance at any rate that the United Kingdom on her part sticks to the definition of aggression in the Charter, and does not herself seek to make a distinction of this kind.
I have said enough to show that we on this side find the treaty unimpressive militarily, open to certain abuses in the Articles relating to intervention for the prevention of subversion, and positively improper so far as this American reservation is concerned. The Foreign Secretary said that he hoped or intended that this should be not merely a paper treaty. I do not know. I do not believe myself that very much that is significant can be done under the treaty, and the final point I want to make, to which I attach very great importance, is that since, in my view, this does not represent an effective South-East Asian policy, and not much will be done under it, it must not be allowed to divert us from other and more constructive policies.
Mr. Nehru has said it does not help peace-making in the area. I think he may be right in so far as a positive contribution to peace-making is concerned,


but I think he exaggerates when he suggests, as he has done, that it is a positive hindrance to peace-making policies. I believe peace-making policies are just as much open to us now as they were before the treaty was signed, and that we must concentrate on them. A peace-making policy might mean reciprocal guarantees, which might include China. It certainly means normalising relations between China and her neighbours in the Far East, and that general phrase includes within it such diverse problems as a settlement of Formosa, international recognition of the Peking Government, and the introduction of the Peoples Government of China into the United Nations. It also includes, in my view, the intensification of Western economic aid to South-East Asia.
On that point, I was not much reassured by what the Foreign Secretary said. There are many schemes, as he said, operating in South-East Asia. There is a number of United Nations schemes, and there is the Colombo Plan. The right hon. Gentleman referred to it as the principal plan. We, of course, have a special interest in it because we are, to some extent, the joint parents of it, but I doubt whether he would be right in saying it is the principal scheme, because the United Nations schemes are much more considerable in scope and are spending more money in the area than the Colombo Plan. There are also other potential United Nations schemes, as we heard at Questions today, such as the Special Fund, that have not been brought to life, and that, in our view, should be brought to life.
I do not think that any money we are prepared to make available for economic development in the area ought to be diverted from those schemes to be applied under Article III of the Manila Treaty, because if it is applied under the Manila Treaty, presumably there must be discrimination between members and nonmembers. I myself cannot see that there was any real need for any new machinery for economic aid to this area at all, and I very much hope that the all too limited resources are not diverted in some way to become a mere adjunct to the Manila Treaty.
Apart from the question of diverting funds from one channel to another, we on this side of the House believe that a far larger scale of international aid is needed.

I was very glad to see that the United States Foreign Aid Administrator, Mr. Stassen, announced that the United States was prepared to do more in relation to the Colombo Plan. That seemed to me to be a step in the right direction. I have been alarmed, on the other hand, to note that certain commentators in our weekend Press say that in Britain the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, as they call it, "applying a squeeze" to all his colleagues. That would presumably include those colleagues who are asking him to maintain or increase our contribution to international organisations. They suggest that he is "applying a squeeze" so that he may be enabled to give tax reliefs, which have a more direct bearing on a forthcoming election.
This may be good vote-catching or it may not, but it is lamentable statesmanship for which the British people and taxpayers may well have to pay very dearly a little later. There could be nothing more short-sighted than a policy in South-East Asia of building up military alliances like the Manila pact, unbuttressed by widespread support in the region, while starving schemes which could build up the economic and political defences of the area.
If we thought that this treaty precluded the development of such schemes or that it precluded co-operation with India and others for restoring normal relations between China and her neighbours, we should have to vote against it. We are not doing so because in our view the treaty need not have that effect. The broad effect of the Geneva settlement was undoubtedly to open up certain paths which might lead to peace in the Far East, and it is upon those paths, rather than upon this digression to Manila, that we on this side of the House continue to have our minds fixed.

7.52 p.m.

Sir Walter Fletcher: The speech of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), following that of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, has clarified certain points in the situation but has confused it in other ways. We are so accustomed to the clarity with which my right hon. Friend exposes what occurs at various meetings that we always take it for granted that we shall have available


this admirable method of showing what has occurred, step by step.
I must admit—and I speak with a certain particular knowledge of Far Eastern questions—that for a long time I was perturbed by Geneva. On reflection, I came to the conclusion that we had drawn then a very valuable lesson. Geneva was the end of rather a sorry chapter, of a tragedy—the essence of tragedy being that it is something which is avoidable but which nevertheless occurs.
For nine years in this House many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and myself pointed out, with some knowledge of the question, what was likely to occur in the Red River Delta of Indo-China, but we could not break through the extreme difficulty which arose because the French were in charge and it was "their" area. In fact, the whole time it was an international question and one which affected America, ourselves and the whole of South-East Asia equally.
Had we taken action in time, the power which Vietminh achieved and the support which it received a good deal later from Communist China need never have occurred. I speak with particular knowledge of this question, having spent nearly two years on that border, and I have not the slightest doubt that we could have brought about a situation as a result of which the southern provinces of Indo-China, which have never been at one with the North, would not have been so easily open to Communism and Communism there would not have given the aggressive support to Vietminh which was subsequently afforded.
I think Geneva was an admission that we had learned that lesson, and that is why I believe that Manila, incomplete, as it is, in many ways, is the best possible arrangement and the best possible recovery from the dangers brought so prominently into notice at Geneva. I do not say for a moment that the Manila arrangement is perfect; it is far from perfect.
The Foreign Secretary made two comments about it to which I think I ought to refer. He said it had two functions, one military and the other economic. But if we are clear-eyed about it, we must ask, who will supply the military power? Who will put the teeth into it, as we used to

ask years ago when we were discussing German affairs? We cannot do it. We are at present very heavily mortgaged by a realistic policy in Europe which recognises de jure what was always de facto the case. We have no power of any sort in the Manila area. The ex-A.N.Z.U.S. Powers have a certain amount, but they are not likely to be able to use them to any considerable extent in order to stop aggression by military means, if aggression of the open order occurs.
The truth is—and it is well to bring it into the open—that there is only one Power which can possibly do it, and that is the United States of America; and that is why, although I am far from agreeing with the American policy on every possible occasion—and I will touch on that a little later—I believe that we have to accept the Manila agreement and the U.S.A. reservation which was criticised by the right hon. Member for Grimsby from the clear point of view that there is one and only one means by which the military strength of the Manila agreement can be made a real and a proper visible deterrent. That is why it is so important that everything said here, outside the House and in China, should be said against the background of its effect in America.
There is a tendency, on the economic side, to say that we must raise the standard of living in these Far Eastern countries and that when we have done so we shall have gone a long way towards solving the problem. Let me put it in this way: in China there is a minimum of 500 million people. That is a low figure. If we were to raise their standard of living by £1 per head per annum, and this country spent £10 per head on their social services outside the indirect services, it would mean an expenditure in one form or another of £500 million a year.
It might be in the form—as I have seen in the backward parts of China—of enabling the Chinese to get away from the wooden plough, which is still the instrument by which agriculture, the main industry of China, is carried on, and to change to the iron or steel plough; or it might be in the form of taking the wooden wheel out of the cart, which is drawn by man rather than by beast, and substituting the rubber-tyred cart, which was the greatest piece of progress which has taken place in China for many years;


or it might be in the form of hydroelectric schemes, or the many other developments which meet first-priority needs in China. Whatever the form, the financial implication of the above policy must be faced. China is not a rich exporting country, as we must bear in mind when East-West trade is discussed; but I will not go deeply into that subject, because this may not be the right time to do so.
We must not be blind to the fact that the process of raising their standard of living will be slow and very gradual. We must not be carried away, as all too frequently we are carried away, by the easy catch-phrase of "raising the standard of living." What we are paying at present towards the Colombo Plan is already a very considerable strain on this country. If the terms of trade alter against us to a certain extent when the competition we shall feel from Japan and Germany is felt even more, it will make it very difficult to maintain the huge sums that are involved in raising the standard of an area where about 800 million people are involved. We have to watch that very carefully.
What we are really considering this afternoon is this: Is this instrument of Manila the best one for the purpose, and has anything occurred since it was initiated which may make it less so? In that connection, I would remind the House that, before we broke up in July, I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he thought that it would not be wise—this was just after the plane had been shot down outside Hainan—that the journey of the Leader of the Opposition and his friends should be postponed. I think that the answer he gave me, with which I disagreed at the time, was, nevertheless, the right one. I think it would have been in a way worse to have tried, probably unsuccessfully, to have stopped that journey than to have allowed it to take place.
I am going to make certain comments on it from the reports I have received about it. First of all, the great handicap which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends suffered was that they went to Peking. Peking is no more typical of China than is Washington of the U.S.A.; it is the worst possible place from which to form a judgment on what is happening in the rest of China. I was very

surprised and rather shocked by some of the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman is supposed to have made. The measure of the extent to which he was forced to make these statements I think lies in two things: the very factual report of Mr. Sam Watson, who has no political difficulties to deal with, and the remarks which had been made recently by Lord Lindsay of Birker as to the extent to which a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman and his friends saw was prefabricated and prepared. He is a very experienced observer.

Mr, Attlee: He referred to a particular village as having been specially prepared, and we have all agreed that we did not think that typical. We knew that that was so, and we said so. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in suggesting that we did draw very large conclusions from Peking. On the contrary, in every statement I have made I pointed out the limited amount we were able to see.

Sir W. Fletcher: Where did the right hon. Gentleman get the basis for his statement? By some very curious gift which he seems to possess he was able to assess an increase in commercial probity in the 95 per cent. of China which he did not visit.

Mr. Attlee: The fact was, with regard to Peking, that we stated that flies had disappeared there and in some other towns. We also visited Shanghai, and the evidence on which we based ourselves in particular were the statements from about 170 Europeans there who agreed on that point.

Sir W. Fletcher: I have travelled through many provinces of China, and I will come to the question of Shanghai in a minute. I should like to say this. The recognition of China, of which I was one of the few on this side to approve, we always said did not mean approval. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly given the impression in China, if one reads the vernacular Press and reports in the U.S.A., that recognition of China is condonation.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Gentleman is entirely misrepresenting me. Over and over again I have pointed out to the Americans that the recognition of a Government does not mean approval. I recognise the hon. Gentleman; I do not necessarily approve of him.

Sir W. Fletcher: I am going a bit further than that, because I condemn the right hon. Gentleman for the line he took. One useful lesson which he appears to have missed is that there is in China a magnificent and well-developed system for the removal, not always painlessly, of political rivals, and that he might have taken advantage of but certainly did not.

Mr. Attlee: If instead of that very cheap retort with which the hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to cover his retreat he will acknowledge that he has grossly misrepresented me, he will be living up to the reputation which he used to have in this House.

Sir W. Fletcher: I have not grossly misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. The impression he has left, and if he reads the American Press—[Interruption] —the American Press has its impressions and is entitled to them—and if he reads a good deal of the Press in China and here, he will see that the impression he undoubtedly gave was that he had, without having the opportunity of getting first-hand knowledge, on hearsay, taken the line which could locally, at any rate, only have one effect, and that is to put heart into a country which has been an aggressor of the worst possible kind.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the House all the way through should recognise this: there has been a major change of policy in China recently. From time immemorial, at least 500 years—this book is Marco Polo's first edition, and his comments were printed in 1485—going back quite a long way—from that time onwards the policy of China has always been an exclusive one to keep out the foreigner. Now there is a new policy, and it is vital that that should be recognised. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman did recognise it, because whilst exclusivity still reigns as a policy, there has been grafted on to it an almost rabid colonial expansionist policy with completely unjustified targets from every point of view. Any attempt made, or which could be interpreted in that sense, to give countenance to that and in any way agree with it must be condemned.
Turning to the question of Tibet, was there any possible justification for the

taking of Tibet? Was there any possible justification for the incitement, the continuance and the expansion of the Korean war, or for the similar attempt in Indo-China by aid to Vietnamh? None at all.
I cannot help feeling that the sort of thread that ran through what the right hon. Gentleman said of let bygones be bygones was intensely dangerous. When does a bygone become a bygone? Is it when the corpse is still warm? Is it from the American point of view, America having expended such a colossal amount of life, and the French point of view, too, really the time for this? I cannot believe that for a single moment. That is why I think that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in the impression that he gave.
He talks about his visit to Shanghai. It is very important to realise what happened. I do not believe, from what I hear—and I have considerable connections—that the impression he tries to bring back now is a very correct one. In Shanghai there was the most open blackmail and holding under duress of British nationals and other nationals there, and yet there is talk now of opening up East-West trade and giving enormous credit to a country that had brought about anything as shameful as the treatment there. What was the sin of these people? They developed in China, shipbuilding and repairs, electricity, electrical plants, all the things for the development of China, and China has scooped the lot for nothing.

Mr. Harold Davies: For nothing.

Sir W. Fletcher: "For nothing," the hon. Member says. I am glad that he has intervened.

Mr. Davies: It was a quid pro quo.

Sir W. Fletcher: A very little quid for a very large quo.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member is making a most scurrilous attack on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir W. Fletcher: It is fully justified by the impression that the right hon. Gentleman has conveyed and the facts as they stand. The right hon. Gentleman knows, and we all know, what is the real trouble. The middle-of-the-road leader of the left-wing party is always in very grave


danger in having to give hostages to fortune, to the left wing of his party. He is in a dangerous position, and the amount that he said and gave way on this occasion and the impression which exists throughout China, deny it as he may, and which exists in America, is a serious handicap to the working of the Manila agreement.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition one final thing in regard to Formosa. He is on record—I do not wish to do him an injustice by misquoting him—as making a remark that it would be wiser to hand Formosa over to the Communists. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out—in this I agree with him entirely—that Chiang Kai-shek had sacrificed and lost for good and all the support of the Chinese, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman realises why he lost it. It was not that he robbed China, which he did, but that he robbed immoderately. He and the Soong dynasty, who were attached to him, committed the one sin in Chinese eyes which must not be committed: that is, the people who are essentially behaviourist to rob without measure barefacedly.
But be that as it may, the fate of Formosa surely cannot be settled on the lines that the right hon. Gentleman expressed. We have heard from him and his hon. Friends on his side of the House recently in regard to Cyprus very strong calls for a plebiscite to be taken. Would he abide by a plebiscite properly arranged and carried out by the people of Formosa? What right have we in any way to settle the fate of Formosa without asking the people of Formosa, who are not typically Chinese?

Mr. Attlee: As the hon. Member is now asking me a question, perhaps I can answer him. The suggestion that I made was that Formosa should be put under a trusteeship of the United Nations for a period of years in order, under proper conditions, to find out what the people themselves want. That is precisely what I recommended.

Sir W. Fletcher: That is not what was reported.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Gentleman surely has attended Press conferences and has some acquaintance with the Press, and surely he understands that the Press do not report fully? I am not prepared to have my statements judged by what appears in the American Press.

Sir W. Fletcher: Certainly that is a step in the right direction. We now know, which is vitally important, that Formosa will in the end abide by what the people of Formosa want. But it is equally important that that should be true in Indo-China, in Siam and in Burma. I wish to pay a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman on Burma, because it was his Government that initiated the policy—I was one of those who supported what he said at the time—which has proved very successful. It is one of the few spots in the area where there is very considerable help.
Let me turn, however, to the question of the Manila agreement. I am disquieted by it, but not exactly for the same reason as the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger). I do not believe that it will be sterile. I think I have support on both sides of the House in saying that the undermining by underground means that is going on in Siam in particular calls for immediate attention. I believe that paragraph 2 of Article IV, which was explained to us by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which provides for consultations to begin with, will not allow the necessary action to be taken.
The whole history of the Far East, of the collapse there—we forget the "Amethyst" very easily—the whole question of stopping Communism and the new policy of colonial aggressiveness, quite irrespective of ethnological questions, must be one of timing. I hope that the Minister who replies will be able to give some assurance, at any rate, that if today a member nation—I gather that all members have the right to do so—were to notify the signatories to the agreement that there was reason to believe that subversive warfare was going on very strongly in Siam, some action would be taken immediately. Unless that is so, the possibility of getting more members will to some extent be hindered, which is, of course, a matter of grave concern.
But let us think quite clearly on the main proposition. This new instrument is far from perfect. Like all such instruments and international bodies and meetings, it only provides an opportunity. Will it be seized upon by those most concerned, ourselves as well as others?
We heard from the Foreign Secretary today of the vast increase in the forces


of Vietminh. We know what is happening in China. What are these forces to be used for? No country acquires and maintains forces like that without reason for doing so, and the grave disquiet that exists, not only all through Indo-China, but in these other countries, as to what will happen in the next year or two must in the end be centred on one thing and on one thing alone. That is whether we will be able to have aid in time from the only Power that we can possibly hope to make the agreement work from the military point of view: that is, the United States of America.
On many points I do not agree with the policy of the United States of America, but let anybody read the Marshall Report and the Weddermeyer Report that were made during the war in China. Let us remember that during the war we and America promoted China to being a great Power when, in fact, she was not. Now that America sees the extent of success of Communism—and it would be unwise not to count on its permanence and to say to ourselves that it might possibly change—she is quite realistically appraising what may happen. It is most unwise that so much is said and done in criticism of the one country that can provide adequate military power in the area and which in the end must contribute so very largely to the economic policy which has been adumbrated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
There is no doubt that in the final issue the agreement is not a strong beginning. It is a good recovery from a difficult and bad situation, but it is all the more urgent and necessary that the bi-partisan policy which we have managed to pursue up to date should continue. For that reason, at any rate, I was glad that the right hon. Member for Grimsby, speaking from the opposite side, pointed out that the House could not be divided upon this. Nevertheless, there stands out clearly the problem of how to get at one with the United States of America to provide this organisation as the one deterrent to further aggression. There is the other point of view of what we can do to increase such aid as we can give in this area where the problem of an increasing population, which is going on the whole time, provides the certainty

that the standard of living is likely to go back rather than advance because the increase in population is so enormous. Let us devote ourselves to these problems instead of thinking of the possible electoral effects of anything that may be done or said in this area, which is still by a long way the most dangerous part of the whole world.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I must say that I admired the nerve of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher) when he ended up his speech with an appeal for a bi-partisan policy when prior to that he had made such cheap and unworthy attacks upon my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He said late in his speech that he was going to turn to the Manila Treaty, but it would have been much better if he had turned to the subject somewhat earlier. Then his speech would not have been sullied with remarks which are unworthy of him and which, I think, are below the standard that hon. Gentlemen maintain in this House. To refuse to accept the assurances of my right hon. Friend about what he said because of reports which have appeared in the American newspapers seems to me an extraordinary position for any hon. Member in this House to adopt.
I want to make three points about the debate this evening. One concerns what the Foreign Secretary said about the Colombo Plan. I was not altogether happy about it. The right hon. Gentleman said what a fine plan it was and how well it was working. With that I agree, but then he went on to say that the economic provisions of the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty must be developed, and that leaves open the question whether or not the Colombo Plan will be drawn somehow or other into the S.E.A.T.O. arrangements. The right hon. Gentleman was not at all clear on that point. He seemed to be speaking with some ambiguity.
As I understand it, it is vitally important that the Colombo Plan shall not be drawn into the S.E.A.T.O. organisation until at least the S.E.A.T.O. organisation has as large a membership as the Colombo Plan. That Plan includes every single one of the nations of South and South-East Asia, whereas the S.E.A.T.O. organisation does not include


them all. Therefore, it would tend to upset the universality of the Colombo Plan in that part of the world if it were drawn into S.E.A.T.O.
Also I must say that, except as an example of ingenuity, I was not impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's defence of the American reservation about Communist aggression. I can understand America for their own reasons wishing to do such a thing, but we should make it clear to them that we are not making these distinctions.
We are against aggression. That is the purpose of the Manila Treaty, that it is opposed to aggression from any quarter. To start making distinctions between Communist aggression and other aggression is to weaken morally the position of the democracies in the West. I hope whoever replies to this debate for the Government will be a little more clear.
But my main point is that I support this Treaty for reasons somewhat stronger than those given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger). Nobody could pretend that this is an ideal treaty. It could be stronger, have more teeth in it; it could be more comprehensive, and it could have in it India and Ceylon. None the less, I think it would be wrong to regard it as of no value, as something just along a side-road, something to which we need not pay attention.
This treaty tries to draw a line in a part of the world where it is very important to draw a line. I agree with the Foreign Secretary when he speaks about it being very important for us to make clear to the world where we would draw the line. The great error that was made before two world wars was that we did not draw such a line; and, therefore, it is very important to make our position clear now. This new treaty goes a considerable way towards doing that, and that seems to me to be a positive advantage.
There is a danger of aggression in that part of the world. I do not agree with those who say there is a certainty of aggression, as some Americans do. That to me is stupid, but that there is danger of aggression is beyond doubt. It has been proved and supported by things that have happened in the last year or two. This treaty does something to build up some

sort of an organisation against aggression and to give notice that aggression will have very dangerous and very grave consequences. That seems to me to be a positive advantage.
I think that this treaty may well give us time; it will serve to deter aggression that might otherwise occur if this treaty were not in existence. And time is what we need above all because we cannot develop our plans to try to attract other democratic Asian Powers unless we have time. We cannot develop economic aid and assistance in various forms unless we have time, and this Treaty has the great merit that it may win us time in which we can develop these more positive policies in the Far East.
I do not agree with the view that S.E.A.T.O. is of no importance. It seems to me an integral part of the policy of winning time in order to achieve the things that my right hon. Friend said have got to be done if we are to have reasonable international amity, peace and prosperity in that area of the world.

8.28 p.m.

Sir Harold Roper: There are in this House varying views on many of the subjects concerning South-East Asia but, as I understand it, we are having this debate not in order to air those differences but to reaffirm our united concern with the countries of South-East Asia in stemming the advance of Communism. I find myself in close agreement with the general trend of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) in regard to the value of the Manila Treaty.
The fundamental issue is that of the ultimate intentions of China. Is her policy one of expansion, perhaps aimed at enveloping ultimately all the countries of South-East Asia, or will she be content merely to revolutionise the social, political and economic conditions within her own boundaries? We all deplore much that has happened in China, the lack of individual liberty, the suppression of individual thought and the shocking treatment of British interests in Shanghai, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher) referred, but which in my view is less relevant to our debate today.
As my hon. Friend reminded the House, the aggressive policy pursued by


China in Tibet and in Korea, and in supporting Vietminh, in Indo-China, certainly suggests expansion. At the same time there are various subversive movements in the South-East Asian countries. On the other hand, the desire for territorial expansion is not a characteristic of the Chinese, and it may be that in this respect Chinese Communism is different from Russian Communism, because Russia has always had a desire for expansion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe, however, rejects this view and is convinced that China is expansionist.
It would be a mistake to take that view prematurely, and it is significant that amongst those who take the opposite view is Mr. Nehru. He appears to believe that there is still reason to hope that history will repeat itself as regards China, and that she will confine her activities to within her own boundaries. We can only hope that he will prove right in his judgment. The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) took the view that Mr. Nehru's complaint was with the terms of the treaty, but my reading of his many speeches on this subject has been rather different. It is not so much that Mr. Nehru objects to the terms of the treaty, as that he is not ready to accede to it at the present time, but, as time passes, his views may change.
While, therefore, we must hope for the best, and believe that China's intentions are peaceful, it would be a great mistake not to be ready for the worst or to depart one iota from our policy of attaining peace through strength. So we must support this treaty, which aims not only at the development of economic strength in that quarter of the world but also at military strength within the framework of defence.
As has been said, there is no sign that strength in decisive measure will come from any source other than America. Surely, therefore we must rejoice that America is in the Manila Treaty with us and perhaps it is a little ungracious and unwise to look the gift horse in the mouth, and to criticise the reservation made by America in the treaty with regard to aggression being only from Communist sources.
It has been also said with much truth that for the defence of South-East Asia

to be effective we must have the co-operation of the countries of South-East Asia. It is disappointing that more of the Colombo Plan countries have not subscribed to the treaty but I am not discouraged by that.
For better or worse Mr. Nehru has made his five-point "gentlemen's agreement" with Chou En-lai, involving peaceful co-existence, and has followed it up with his visit to Peking. It is greatly to be hoped that the terms of that "gentlemen's agreement" will be observed in spirit as well as in letter, and also that they will be applied to the other countries of South-East Asia, because quite clearly any further encroachment of Communism in the South-East Asian countries would be of very great concern to us all, including India.
Whether Mr. Nehru's policy succeeds or not, I am convinced that the signing of this treaty has created in South-East Asia an atmosphere in which that policy has the best chance of succeeding. I believe that the sense of peace with strength which lies at the back of it must have that effect in the countries of South-East Asia.
I should like to say a few words about Burma, a country which is well-known to me, and which I was fortunate enough to be able to revisit earlier this year as a member of the Parliamentary Delegation, Burma, of course, and perhaps not unnaturally, leans very heavily towards India as towards a big brother. The tide of war swept over Burma twice before the Japanese were finally defeated. Since then Burma has had to cope with seven years of internal rebellion and has had no opportunity to settle down properly. The last thing that Burma wants is another war. That is why she cannot subscribe immediately to the treaty, and she is not likely to do so until India does.
Nevertheless, Burma borders on China and on Indo-China, and she is very conscious of the danger. She needs something more than messages of mutual good will to sustain her sense of security. Even though Burma is not a member of it, the existence of the Manila Treaty will strengthen her confidence to resist aggressive Communism. Many of us, including myself, have very warm feelings for Burma. I believe that those feelings are reciprocated; I believe there is in Burma greater good will towards us than there


has ever been. I have faith—it is a faith —that in some way that good will will ultimately react to the benefit both of ourselves and of Burma, and will help towards a happy solution.
We also went to Indonesia. Indonesia is important for its strategic position, for its size—sprawling over 3,000 miles of ocean—and for its population, which exceeds the total population of our British Colonial Territories, a fact very little realised in our country. It is important also through the very uncertainty of its political future.
It is significant that in Indonesia there are three million Chinese living their own lives, not particularly interested in politics, but, like Chinese elsewhere, their tendency in regard to party politics in their own country is to side with those in power at the moment. The Communists have a strong hold in the trade unions and are also helping to sustain the present Government in power.
Nevertheless, I believe that the strength of the Moslem faith and a generally prosperous countryside are countervailing factors which should operate against the spread of Communism. I have some confidence in President Sukarno to counteract the threat of Communism. He has shown firmness in the past in dealing with it. In his speeches also he has shown a full realisation that in the world today a country like Indonesia cannot stand alone, but must have friends. Like Mr. Nehru and U. Nu in Burma, he realises the necessity for co-operation with his neighbours.
Although none of these three countries, India, Burma, and Indonesia, has yet found itself able to subscribe to it, I regard it as one of the greatest merits of the treaty that, should circumstances arise which cause those countries to have second thoughts, there is nothing in its terms to which real exception can be taken. It is a treaty of mutual aid for defensive purposes, and there is nothing in it even remotely resembling anything else.
In all these three countries at the present a strict neutralism is the order of the day but, if Mr. Nehru's hopes are not realised, if the countries of South-East Asia continue to find Communism still active in their midst—active with propaganda, active in infiltration of the trade

unions, active in the teaching of Communism in Chinese schools in those countries, I refer particularly in that respect to Burma, and if China continues to devote heavy expenditure to the fighting forces even though active hostilities have ceased—then I do not despair that all the free countries of South-East Asia may yet find themselves coming in as parties with us to the Manila Treaty.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: It is not very often that I have the privilege of making a contribution in a debate on foreign policy, but I am very pleased to follow the hon. baronet the Member for Cornwall, North (Sir H. Roper), because he and I were members of a Parliamentary Delegation which visited Burma and Indonesia in the early part of the year. We were therefore to some extent able to come in close contact with the problem which the House is debating tonight, and I feel, no doubt like the hon. baronet, that our impressions may be of some value.

Sir H. Roper: I am not a baronet.

Mr. Sparks: Well, the hon. Gentleman.
I do not believe that we can regard the Manila Treaty as an attempt to circle China, as some of my hon. Friends would seem to infer. If we take a look at the map of Asia we find that China, together with her ally the Soviet Union, account for about 75 per cent. of the land mass of the Continent. Between them they account for something like 1,000 million of the population. They possess overwhelming natural resources awaiting development and between them they have a well-equipped standing army of something like 9 million.
When we look at the map and pinpoint the other countries in South-East Asia, apart perhaps from India, their populations, relatively speaking, are small. They are weak and backward countries. Illiteracy is predominant throughout. India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Indonesia are young countries. They are experimenting with this great idea of social democracy. They have received their freedom in these post-war years, and are endeavouring, perhaps in different ways, to apply the principles of social democracy within their own borders. They look to us for guidance in this respect. The respect which they have


for our Parliamentary institutions is a matter of great thankfulness so far as we are concerned, because they think that there is something in our democratic system worthy of emulation.
What is the position in those countries? They are mostly defenceless. Were there an act of aggression in that part of the world, I doubt whether any of them could resist for very long. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North referred to Burma. It is a small country of 18 million people. Parts of it are occupied by Communist insurgent forces. Fortunately the Government has well established itself and is gradually overcoming this element. Nevertheless, it is having to spend much of its resources on maintaining internal security, and there is no doubt that if there were an act of aggression against her by China, Burma is in no position to resist.
This history of Indonesia is very similar in many respects to that of Burma. When Burma gained her independence in 1947 it was the signal for the Communist Party to attempt a coup d'état to overthrow the Government, and that movement has not yet been suppressed. The Communist Party attempted to do precisely the same thing in 1948 when Indonesia was on the point of receiving her independence.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about British Guiana?

Mr. Sparks: British Guiana has nothing to do with this.

Mr. Hughes: What about Guatemala?

Mr. Sparks: Guatemala has nothing to do with this. We are talking about South-East Asia at the moment. Both Burma and Indonesia have been grappling not only with the problem of internal security, not only with the problem of illiteracy, not only with the absence of a competent and efficient civil service, but with an attempt to reconstruct and redevelop their countries in order to give a fuller life to their own people.
Both Burma and Indonesia were occupied by the Japanese for many years, and they battened upon the resources of both countries. When the Japanese went, Burma was able to receive independence within a very short period of time. But Indonesia had to struggle for many years to secure independence. Therefore I do not despair,

neither would anybody who has had contact with Burma and Indonesia despair, at the fact that these countries are not able at the moment to adhere to the principles of the Manila Treaty. But, and make no mistake about it, at the backs of their minds—and I spoke to many of them—if there were an act of aggression upon either of these countries, is the belief that Britain and the United States would help to defend them. Therefore, although we may criticise, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) may laugh at it——

Mr. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend explain why the people of Burma do not want S.E.A.T.O.?

Mr. Sparks: My hon. Friend asked why the people of Burma do not want S.E.A.T.O. One reason why at the moment they are unable to adhere to it is that if they adhere to a treaty of that description it places upon them a military obligation which economically they are not in a position to withstand at the present time. The same applies to other nations at the moment outside the Manila Treaty. They must be expected to provide sufficient forces to make the treaty effective. It means they would have to increase their expenditure on armaments and military forces which they can ill-afford to do at the present time.

Mr. Hughes: Like us.

Mr. Sparks: They have an internal problem of great magnitude with which to cope. Whether or not the Manila Treaty will secure additional adherence in the years ahead must depend to a great extent, not only upon the internal conditions in these countries that are now outside, but very largely upon the reactions from Communist China. The South-East Asian countries know there is very little evidence in the poet-war years to prove that the intention of Communist foreign policy is peaceful. Indeed, it is very far from it.

Mr. Warbey: Mr. Warbey rose——

Mr. Sparks: I have given way quite enough. Let me get on. They have sufficient evidence in Korea, not to mention any other parts of the world, and if there has been a change of attitude on


the part of the great Communist powers of Asia. I am sure we shall all welcome that change. At the moment there is not very much evidence of that.
Therefore, the Manila Treaty, with all its ambiguities and weaknesses, and in spite of all the criticisms that can be levelled against it, may yet prove to be a source of strength. If what has been said from the Front Benches on either side today is correct, there is nothing for China, Soviet Russia or anybody else to fear in the Manila Treaty. It is a warning light, and it will give encouragement to all the countries in South-East Asia to realise that peace and security are something for which they must work together.
I should like to refer to the speech by the Indonesian Ambassador, which is reported in the journal "Indonesian Information," for October, 1954, and to quote it, because the Ambassador put into better words than I or most hon. Members could, the problems which face his own country and all the Colombo Powers. He spoke of the Colombo Powers and the preservation of peace in Asia, and said:
Since the end of the second world war saw the emergence of new independent States throughout Asia, all of whom face the enormous task of rebuilding their countries, there can be no doubt that the outstanding problem is the preservation of peace in Asia.
When we talk of peace, I think it is most important that we always bear in mind the fact that peace is not static, but is essentially dynamic. All too often, man has considered peace in a negative light, defining it as the absence of war, an interlude between battles, a hiatus in the cycle of world-shattering events. Because we Asian Powers are undertaking to match with performance the promise of our revolution, we may be able to prove that to dream of, to plan for and to build a successful social system, at peace with its neighbours, can be just as thrilling and demand just as much courage and foresight as the planning of a military operation. Probably we in Asia have a better opportunity to prove this point since our struggle for an improved standard of living must of necessity assume all the proportions of a major campaign, for we are confronting the forces of Nature, which for centuries have robbed us of our chance to live and yet which hold the key to our future prosperity. We must fight disease and famine with the same tenacity as we withstood human adversaries, and our pioneers of medicine and engineering will require the endurance of front line troops when grappling with the overwhelming odds which they are required to face…Our common aim is positive construction and to achieve our end

we need peace and time. …Our able-bodied men are desperately needed, not to shoulder rifles but to carry the materials and tools of reconstruction…As I have said, we need time and we need peace, and for this reason Indonesia and others have no wish to become aligned with any military bloc. We want no commitments which may plunge us into war before we have time to lay the foundations of our new way of life. As you know, we have carried our policy of non-alignment right through to the point of not participating in S.E.A.T.O. We maintain an independent foreign policy.
That does not prove what some of my hon. Friends seek to infer. There is no great hostility to the Manila Treaty, for reasons of which we are all aware. These countries are apprehensive of what has been taking place in Korea and Viet Nam. They are under no illusions as to the danger of Communist foreign policy.
I think that time will prove as the Colombo Plan gathers force and develops its strength and the economic problems of these countries are brought nearer solution, that if the countries can overcome the poverty, disease and malnutrition and improve the education and knowledge of their people, they will be better able to organise and develop their resources. That is an important consideration. Therefore, I would say that we must give the new treaty a chance to prove itself. I believe that in course of time it will be found that additional nations will be prepared to adhere to it.
I am sure that in those countries which I was privileged to visit the people, although at the moment they cannot see their way to undertake the military commitments involved in membership of the treaty, have in their minds the clear faith that, if danger threatens, their best friends are Britain and the United States.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: I listened with the greatest interest to what was said by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). I got the impression that there is just a possibility that we may eventually find ourselves with too many military commitments in too many parts of the world. It would seem from what the hon. Gentleman said that at present, and possibly for quite a long time, the countries to which he referred have no intention whatever of trying to do anything to pull their weight militarily. I do not say that this must not be, but it is something about


which we ought to be careful. I will come back to that later.
I should like to ask two questions which perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary may be able to answer. One is not so much a question of my own as one which has been asked by a large number of Britishers in the Far East. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was not able to go himself to take part in the conference why—although everybody knows that Lord Reading is a very great expert on the subject—was not advantage taken of the services of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald and the organisation at Singapore?
It would be useful if my hon. Friend could give some reason for that. We know that Mr. MacDonald went away on holiday at about that time, but he has been in Singapore for many years now, with a very expensive organisation. I believe that it is right to say that he has become a great expert on that part of the world. That being so, it would be of interest to know just why he was not able to go.
I should also like to know why Hong Kong and Formosa have been left out of this treaty. It may be that Formosa has been left out because of the problems that would be involved if she were included, but if anything were to happen to Formosa it would cause the greatest alarm in the Philippines, who feel that Formosa is their northern bulwark.
The Philippines extend right down to the border of North Borneo and if they fell, that would endanger our Colony. I sometimes think that we know far too little about the Philippines and that we see far too little of their people when they visit us. With regard to Hong Kong being left out, it would be very alarming if there were any suggestion that we were not taking the defence and protection of Hong Kong completely seriously and I should like to be reassured on this point.
As far as I can see from the treaty, we are determined from now onwards to stop the advance of Communism and Communist propaganda, but I should like to know exactly in what way we are to do so. It is so very simple for Communism to be taught as it is being taught today in Indo-China.
As far as one can gather, what happens is that the Communists send experts who know the patois of the local districts, and who ask the people, "Are you against the absentee landowner?" to which the people inevitably reply in the affirmative. Then they are asked, "Are you also against the userer or moneylender?" to which again the reply is, "Yes." They are then told that that is all that Communism is. That is the kind of teaching that the people in the Laos and Cambodia areas are getting. Are we making any serious efforts to resist that?
I know that we have recently sent out a very live and vital youngish new minister to Laos, but, we must do more. We have in Hong Kong a perfect shop window, showing the East what can be done. Mr. Malcolm MacDonald has recently told us that he feels absolutely certain that the best form of propaganda against Communism is to increase the standard of living and to increase employment. If that is so, we should be able to show the people of Indo-China the tremendous advances which have been made in Hong Kong, what a wonderful experiment it has been, and the way in which, since the war, we have been able to put it back on its feet.
We may get the answer that Indo-China is still so closely connected with France that it is not for us to do anything like that, but from what I have heard in Paris during the last few weeks the business people connected with Indo-China are considerably perturbed at the lack of interest in Indo-China which is now being shown by the present French Premier and Government. They give the impression that they are immensely relieved to be rid of the problem and can now put themselves, because of this, in a position of greater strength in Europe. They give the impression that they are not worrying very much what happens in that part of the world. That is rather unfair to us.
Not only should we give publicity to what we have achieved in Hong Kong, but we ought to be taking a little more trouble about other areas, such as Formosa. There, too, the West is building up a better standard of living. At the present time we have a consul there, but Australia, New Zealand and Canada have ambassadors. Trade in that country is flourishing, and I do not think that it would indicate any failure of our policy


of pushing trade with China if we were to increase our trade interests and connections in Formosa.
It has recently been stated that the United States are now slowly coming round to the idea of making Formosa a neutral country, if possible, and proving that Formosa has not belonged to China for a long time. That is true. Formosa was under the Japanese from 1900. Before that the Chinese had no real control over it, and at many times in many periods Chinese who were persecuted by the then Chinese Government used to escape to Formosa. Formosa may become important again in the not far distant future for the following reason.
I personally do not believe that China, that land of such vast area, and with a population of between 500 million and 600 million, will hold together indefinitely, The biggest worries the Chinese Government have now are economic worries, and the screw will eventually have to be turned on the farmers, and then the Government will have trouble, especially in the southern parts of China. If there is trouble in the Canton area it may well be that many of the southern Chinese will seek to link up, not necessarily with Chiang Kai-shek, but certainly with elements in Formosa.
I hope that other countries not mentioned in the treaty may enter the treaty as time goes on, and I hope that Japan will not be forgotten. Mr. Yoshida, who has just been here, has in the last few weeks made it abundantly clear that South-East Asia is an area with which Japan wants to trade and must trade. Just as we are bringing Germany into N.A.T.O., I hope we shall see no reason why we cannot bring Japan into a share of the responsibility for the protection, if protection should be needed, of South-East Asia.
We must not forget we have immense possibilities there, but unless we use the right type of propaganda, which is close to hand, in the more backward parts of South-East Asia things will go by default and the Communists will inevitably get control. If, on the other hand, we use the sort of propaganda Hong Kong itself provides, and if we do something for the refugees who are now pouring out of northern Viet Nam down to the south, and if generally, whenever possible, the Government show they are really

interested in what is going on in South-East Asia, as they will have an opportunity of doing at the forthcoming meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, we can stop Communism from spreading out there. But we must start immediately.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I sympathise with the Foreign Secretary. He did a magnificent job of work for Britain at Geneva. I remember distinctly the speech he made when he came back from Geneva, when he said that he believed that the Geneva Conference was unique in that at it there were Chinese, Russian and British representatives. When they did not sulk, and when Mr. Foster Dulles and others did not wander away, we had some representatives from America there, too. A really constructive job of work for world peace was then done by a Conservative Foreign Secretary, and it would be churlish of any party or any man not to recognise that. I recognise the work the right hon. Gentleman did, and I pay tribute to him for it.
But what has happened since? We have had this Manila Treaty. The right hon. Gentleman pretends that it has emanated from Geneva. We have only to consider the speeches made in this House by the Foreign Secretary and his deputies to see that they have been bewitched and bewildered by American foreign policy in the Pacific Ocean. Nothing worries them more than the kind of foreign policy that America is foisting on us.

Sir Anthony Eden: The hon. Gentleman really ought not to be so modest about himself.

Mr. Davies: I am quite prepared to pay tribute to a good job of work done by anybody for the peace of the world, whoever does it, but the flattering terms in which on both sides of the House the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation has been described tonight betray a complete misunderstanding of the poverty and the wretchedness of the Asiatic peoples.
First, I am sick to death of the word "Communism" being made an excuse for all kinds of events. I have never had a Communist Party card in my life, but I maintain the right to say when I think they are right and when I think they are


wrong. The connotation of the word "Communist" depends on circumstances. If the Communist is Tito, he can dine with the Queen.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: He can dine with the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Davies: But if the same Communist, at a certain moment, does not suit, up we go in arms, and then we hear high-powered speeches from both sides of the House defending our struggle against Communism. Nobody wants to struggle against Communism—and Conservatism —more than I do.
It is suggested that the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation will cure the world, but this treaty is not defending China or defending South-East Asia; it is offending South-East Asia. We do not cure gangrene by pouring lavender water on it. While the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation may smell sweet, it does not cover the hunger, the wretchedness and the poverty which underlies the struggle of the Asiatic people for their liberation.
The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher) posed as an authority on South-East Asia. He is ill, and I am a kindly individual; and I therefore refrained from interrupting him. Further, I was wise enough to realise that if I had interrupted him I should have spoiled my chance of being called in the debate. The hon. Gentleman spoke of what we had given to China. He mentioned Hong Kong. Has the House forgotten that when the war broke out in the Far East the water supply of Hong Kong was cut off on Christmas Day and from that moment Hong Kong was finished? One can have all kinds of guns, but they are useless if there is no water. The lives of 2 million people were at stake.
The truth is that we are building up military treaties and commitments all over the world while we are investing less per head in this country than America and Germany are investing at home, while we are consuming only about the same amount as we consumed in 1938, while we are falling behind our future competitors and falling more and more into debt.
If hon. Members would like to check these facts, they should go into the Library and look at this month's Colonial

Digest. Consider how the sterling assets of Hong Kong have grown while our treaties of peace through strength have spread over the Pacific Ocean, with its now radioactive atmosphere. Radioactive ash now falls on Singapore. There was a case the other day in which it was found that the gloves of a crew of a Japanese boat, a thousand miles from the South Pole, were radioactive.
People are living in a dream world when they talk about the strength of conventional weapons. Could the Manila Treaty Powers get a navy into those waters? Could we move it through radioactive seas? If we have 20 hydrogen bombs and Russia has one hydrogen bomb, it is still the boy who delivers the first bomb who finishes the war. It is not the quantity that we have which counts in the modern world.
In 1950, the sterling assets of Hong Kong were £94 million; in 1951, they were £116 million; in 1952, £120 million; and in 1953, £132 million. That is Hong Kong—with the British public heavily in debt to the hungry and backward peoples of the Far East.
In 1950, the sterling assets of Malaya were £164 million—debts which should have been paid. In 1951, they were £252 million; in 1952, our debts to Malaya were £283 million; and on 30th June, 1953, they were £289 million. The graph of debt is rising while we are talking in grand phrases of extending military commitments in the Pacific. We should be working off these debts by giving tractors, ploughs, and fertilisers. We ought to be paying off the debt which we owe these people in South-East Asia.
I believe that much more attention to the Colombo Plan, much more attention to the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, and much more attention to Mr. Truman's Point Four would have provided the peace-breeding atmosphere in the Pacific Ocean, rather than the setting up of a treaty to please the U.S.A. which had a diplomatic defeat because the British Foreign Secretary was sensible enough to insist upon talks with Russia and China, whatever America may have thought at that particular period of history.
It is time that we asserted our diplomatic knowledge of the life and ways of the people of South-East Asia. I am not being unkind to the American people.


The American people want peace just as much as the British or the Russians. I had the pleasure of lecturing in America and to the Russians. The ordinary people wherever we go, the American mother as well as the Russian mother, want peace, and so does South-East Asia. Do we think that they are pleased with this treaty? Of course, they are not. It is undermining the Charter of the United Nations.
The more commitments we get, the more sub-treaties that we build up, the more bedraggled becomes the original sparkling declaration of San Francisco. I believe that had the Conservative Government, or had we in this House, the courage, we could even now demand that there should be no ratification until we have an all-round conference with the Commonwealth Powers.
I very quietly interrupted the Foreign Secretary, who is always very courteous, while he was making his speech, and I asked: Was Canada invited and consulted? Dear old Canada is furthest away of all and does not want to be consulted and drawn into this problem. She does not want to be drawn into the problem of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. Where, then, is the Conservative Party going, and where are we going on this side of the House?
People talk of realism. I am surrounded at the present moment by bewildered realists. [Laughter.] Oh yes, every 10 years or so we advocate peace through strength very strongly, and four years of war and 30 million tombstones in Europe and Asia are testimony to that realism. Do hon. Members mean to tell me that we can bring in India? I heard someone talking about Burma, and then reading a speech by the Prime Minister of Indonesia defending the constructive effort for peace. Do we think that India is coming into this racket? Of course not. This is really a treaty to please the Nolan-Dulles-Radford axis, so far as America is concerned.
I am not going into the Lobby to vote against this treaty, but the tragedy of this pact is that (a) it undermines the good work at Geneva, and (b) it undermines the good work for unity which is going on in India.
I have been studying this weekend the economics of the Pakistan problem. I

have also had the opportunity of travelling a little in Pakistan. Here we have East Pakistan on one side and West Pakistan on the other completely bewildered and split. Do we think that support by Pakistan for our policy will add strength to South-East Asia? Of course not. Every one on this side of the House and no doubt on the other side knows the truth of the statement I am making.
Why should these people be drawn into this set-up? They have been hastened into it—I am not being anti-American, but I am telling the Americans the truth—by over-anxious American diplomacy which refuses to take the steadying hand of the British Foreign Office and of the British Foreign Secretary, whichever party he may belong to, and it is time that the British people asserted very strongly their knowledge so far as the Pacific and Asian diplomacy is concerned.
If there were any terrific fight in South-East Asia against Communism, would all these countries be united? Can anybody or any Member of the House really define what is meant by Communism? Do not forget that for 30 years before the struggle in Indio-China came to a head there were revolutionary movements in French Indo-China, but they were not called Communism then. We are using the word "Communism" now to describe every legitimate effort of hungry subject people to get freedom of speech and the right of self-government. Whatever may happen, I am not subscribing to that kind of approach to world problems.
Somebody has referred to the thousand million people of Asia. How many of them have heard of Karl Marx? In our own country, the Bible has made more Socialists than has Karl Marx. How many people in Korea have heard of Marx, or even Stalin? One moment we are told that the people there can neither read nor write, but the very next moment, by contradictory logic, the same speaker asserts that they are being indoctrinated with Communism. One cannot have it both ways.
And so we have to ask ourselves to whom we can look for guidance. Speakers on both sides of the House have appealed to us to notice what Nehru says about events in the Far East. The


Prime Minister has claimed that the appeal for co-existence was first uttered by the Foreign Secretary. During the speeches in June and July at the Geneva Conference, there was a ray of hope in the Foreign Secretary's approach to China. He mentioned a Locarno approach. Locarno took place on 16th November, 1925, but it was not a treaty except to defend mutual frontiers in Western Europe. It allowed the East to be wide open.
We want something different from Locarno; we want something with a different Objective. I believe that there can only be a security system in the Far East when the Foreign Secretary insists upon striving once again for a Commonwealth conference and a conference with China, Russia, the U.S.A. and Britain at Geneva to discuss the whole gamut of security in South-East Asia.
Let us face the reality of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. We are putting our boys on the Continent of Europe for the next 50 or 60 years with conscription.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: Hear, hear.

Mr. Davies: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "Hear, hear" Are the Colonies and the Dominions to have conscription? Is Australia to introduce conscription because it is in the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. [Interruption.] I withdraw what I said in case I have given the impression that the hon. and gallant Gentleman said "Hear, hear" by way of supporting conscription. He was supporting the Nine-Power Treaty. New Zealand, Australia and Canada are not to have conscription, but this country has it.
I was told by one of my friends that Burma, Indonesia, and Malaya were looking to us—everybody is looking to us. It is time that we looked to ourselves a little and saved ourselves from some of these silly military commitments in the hydrogen bomb age, because the entire logistics and art of strategy are completely altered. Generals are always prepared to win the last war but not the next. They never catch up with the scientific progress made between one war and another, and in the end it is the poor old civilian who has to step in.
I have made my point. I believe this pact is dangerous. I was pleased to find the Leader of the Opposition pinpointing our understanding of the pact. The United States says that it would consult under the provisions of Article 4 (2), but is this then the position, that if the United States thinks the aggression is Communist then it can take action before consultation? I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong, because this is important and it must not be misinterpreted. May I repeat, if the United States thinks that aggression is Communist according to its own interpretation, it can move in today and consult tomorrow, as, in fact, was done in Korea. Do not let us misunderstand the position. Any hon. Member can go into the Library and get the book called "The Cold War and Defence" produced by Chatham House, and I think he will find on page 110 it is stated that even now information has not been given to the world to reveal the exact position about aggression by North or South Korea.
I do not want any cheap remarks about it, because, although it hurt me, I went into the Lobby with my party in the belief that aggression was committed in Korea by the North Korean Army. But when our boys are committed all over the earth we want the right of consultation instead of being pulled in quickly behind another nation, be it the United States or any other. It has been said that this pact is like A.N.Z.U.S., but nothing could be further from We truth. This pact is humbug. It does not compare with A.N.Z.U.S. at all. It only includes a few nations which are satellites of the Western Powers. I am using the word "satellite" purposely, because this is the kind of propaganda going on at the present time—if a Power is the friend of Russia it is a satellite, but if it is a friend of America it is an ally. Is it not a farce?

Sir Anthony Eden: But that is exactly the difference between the two.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Yes, that is the difference.

Mr. Davies: Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Worthing say that that is the difference between the two words, but that reveals their subconscious mind. [Interruption.] I know


that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not like what I am saying, but I am entitled to make my point. We are living in an age where words are using men—[Interruption.] I know it may hurt hon. Members opposite when I say these things.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Ludicrous.

Mr. Davies: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says "ludicrous," but it was not ludicrous when he was offering his life for his country because of his beliefs. When other people have to give their lives, some of us consider it is our duty to get underneath the polished, suave surface of international diplomacy, and that is what I have been trying to do tonight. I do not believe that armaments are the solution for South-East Asia but that we should be removing hunger and trying to advance the standard of life of the people in those areas.
This is not the time to put the emphasis on military pacts. That is following a barren policy. I have spoken of the debts being piled up in the sterling area by South-East Asia, and every Britisher ought to be ashamed of those debts. We should be trying to wipe them out instead of increasing them. I warn this House that if we take on further commitments, then these people in South-East Asia will have to live like Spartans. In the end, it was not Sparta which prevailed, but it was the cultural and democratic portions of Greece which spread their philosophy throughout the world and gave us the basis of our civilisation. Let us try to build up a democratic system which will permit in South-East Asia freedom of speech and true co-existence.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: If I do not follow the rather erratic arguments of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), I hope he will forgive me. I welcome the collective defence treaty made in the light of the successive Chinese and Communist moves in Tibet, in Indo-China and in Korea. I look upon this treaty as a great encouragement to our friends in Asia, who, in the light of the withdrawals since 1945, must wonder whether the day of the white man in the East is not drawing to a close.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about America. I welcome particularly the

association of the United States of America with South-East Asia because, whenever we have moved out of step with the Americans in the Far East, it has usually led utimately to trouble. I recall the Manchuria incident of 1931, I recall the fateful summer of 1941, and also I recall the time in 1950 when we moved out of step with the Americans, when we were considering whether or not to recognise Communist China.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) said that it was the wrong time to conclude this treaty, that he would have waited to consult India. I wonder if one fault of the Opposition when they were in power was not that they were always tending to consult someone and not having the courage to do what they thought was right at the time. I was most interested to hear the encouraging speeches of the hon. Members on both sides of the House who have visited Indonesia and Burma, whose words, I am sure, have justified the decision of the Government in concluding this treaty when they did.
What we are concerned about now, however, are the immediate dangers facing us in the Far East. I take the view that the Communist offensive has changed from the military to the political sphere. I believe that we shall be faced shortly with a carefully planned campaign to detach India and Japan from their Western connections, accompanied by the offer—to Japan—of a benevolent peace treaty and more generous guarantees of increased trade in the future than have hitherto been extended from Peking. We must realise before it is too late that the balance of world power has passed from Europe and the Middle East to Asia. If Asia is closed to us, I am sure that both economically and militarily it will have grave strategic consequences.
Does S.E.A.T.O. go far enough economically in helping South-East Asia? I must say that I regard with foreboding nationalism of the type which is now rearing its ugly head in many distant countries which, for want of a better ideal, are putting their chances of a long period of peace in jeopardy.
In Asia at present there seems to me to be no practical constructive ideal. The ideal that I would give to Asia is the ideal of freer trade based on individual liberty under the rule of law, as is


described in the preamble of this treaty. I should like to see established the ability to trade freely, unrestricted by the State and ruled only by honour to abide by certain rules of conduct in international trade, with safeguards against dumping and unfair trade practices.
Over and above that I should like to see established an economic system fortified by the ability of countries and individuals to live within their income and to pay their debts. We seek an expansion of world trade, especially in Asia, but to do it we must rescue ourselves from economic nationalism and restrictions which seem to be increasing in Asia as each month passes. I wish to see trade sought out by individuals and private companies, and not by States seeking further State agreements. Surely it is the task of the State to protect such individuals and companies and not to take part in such trading?
If S.E.A.T.O. can be used in an economic sense to assist in further trade, I welcome it as a step in the right direction, but it is only the first step in a very long journey to bring back confidence to a very troubled world. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the very able speech by Albert Schweitzer which was reported in the "Sunday Times" yesterday. That great authority on the East said:
Confidence is, in all things, the supreme capital, without which nothing of real use can be done.
I welcome this treaty because it is a step in the right direction to bring back confidence in Asia, confidence which is so lacking at the present time. I am sure that if we carry out the spirit of the policies which we and the Americans and our other allies are trying to follow, in the end we shall achieve what we want in the East—peace and stability.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I intervene for a short while because, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), I have a feeling that the case that some of us on this side of the House see in support of these treaties is in fact being put a little lower than is required. I think there is a case for supporting the Manila Treaty and supporting this agreement a great

deal more strongly than that which has been put.
I do not really follow the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) who, I think, spoke as though the Colombo Plan was not already in existence and as though what we were really going to do in South-East Asia was to find a base for British trade and traders. I cannot think that that would commend this or any other treaty in that part of the world, or anywhere else. I think he was making a speech which was harking back to a time and spirit which have long since gone. The case for accepting this treaty rests rather better on something which the Foreign Secretary mentioned in his speech, something which has worried me for a long time.
Let us be quite clear that in that area of the world, as elsewhere, a long series of aggressions has been going on. Some of them have come from outside the countries against which there has been aggression, and some have been started by aggression from within the countries affected. It it no use talking as though the technique of aggression was something continuing always in the same pattern, for indeed it is not. Would-be aggressors from time to time choose an altogether new pattern, and recently the pattern has been not so much an overt, direct and open attack from without, but rather to secure from within the existence of large fifthcolumns—if I may use that term—maybe of the nationals of the aggressor State, or maybe of those on whom the doctrine and dogma have worked to provide the force for the aggression from within.
I have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), for whose judgment on these things one necessarily has great respect, objecting to Article II of this treaty. I was not clear whether he actually thought it was contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, but he certainly thought it was difficult to fit it in with the Charter. I have not the Charter with me and do not carry these details in my head, as some hon. Members are able to, but I see nothing in Article II which is contrary to the Charter. It sets out that every country shall be free from this kind of attack, either from within or from without. I am bound to say to hon. Friends on these benches that there have been many occasions since the


early 1930s when we have felt particularly strongly on these benches against a failure to take united action to come to the help of a legitimate government attacked from within.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Guatemala?

Mr. Brown: We will go back a little beyond Guatemala.
My hon. Friend must remember the indignation which was engendered on the Opposition benches nearly 20 years ago when we felt very strongly that the friends of the right hon. Gentleman did not allow him to come to the aid of a legitimate Government attacked from within. That could happen again, and has been happening recently.
There is a great tendency to quote Mr. Nehru these days as though he were the absolute answer to every single problem. I must say that I have not all that faith in Mr. Nehru, although he is a very considerable man who, fortunately perhaps, is in the position which he occupies at the moment. What is Mr. Nehru worried about? He is very worried about the existence of large numbers of Chinese whom the Chinese Government, he thinks, persist in regarding as Chinese nationals.
He is obviously very concerned about the fact that they may be used as a fifth column to open the door from within. He has gone to all the trouble to go to Peking to raise this question and ask for assurances about it, and has given great publicity to the assurances which he thinks he has got. I do not know how many Chinese there are in the countries of the area about which we are speaking. I think it is tens of millions—more than 10 million at least; there are as many as three million, I believe, in one of the countries. Some of the countries have vast numbers of Chinese nationals.
I think it fair to say that in the context of this treaty which, after all, comes into operation by unanimous decision of the areas designated and does not import action to the area of any non-party unless it is sought and consented to by that Government, there is nothing contrary to the spirit of the Charter or to the treaties we have held to and asked for for a very long time, or to say that international united aid by the democracies should not be available to a Government or country

defending itself in those circumstances. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is not present to hear me say this, but I felt that his criticism of Article II fell rather short of the strength needed to make a really effective case.
I welcome the treaty because it does what some of us have for a long time felt should be done. I have said this outside the House and I think it only fair to say it in this Chamber. In the circumstances in which the world is now, I consider that a line has to be drawn, both for the benefit of those on our side of the line and for possible aggressors. Again and again we have found ourselves at war with aggressive men and nations. That has not happened because they deliberately sought a war. Indeed there has hardly ever been an aggressive or dictatorial power which deliberately sought the war which in the end resulted. But again and again aggressive Powers get into a war because they find it impossible to ascertain the point beyond which they cannot go without a war resulting.
Many of us thought that Hitler should have had made clear to him the point which we regarded as sacred and beyond which any step would result in united action. It is well to say to potential aggressors in Europe and in Asia that a line is being drawn, and to tell them, in the good old trade union parlance, "Thus far, brother, and no farther" I regret that in Europe they got so far before we took action to stabilise the position. When N.A.T.O. got going and the line was drawn the position was stabilised extraordinarily well.
No one who has been beyond the Iron Curtain recently, as I have been, can be very happy at the nearness of the line which has now been stabilised, or about the obvious preparations being made immediately behind that line, and the obvious ability to cross it whenever it is decided to do so. But at any rate, to cross that line now in Europe would mean a deliberate act. There can be no question of drifting into a war because no one knows what is involved.
In Asia, we have seen successive acts of aggression and I should like to see the cultivation of any slight hope of peace that there may be. But it is no use blinding oneself to the fact that aggression


has been going on. Before a hope for peace can be cultivated ground for such hope must be provided by Russia. We have had a series of aggressions in Asia. When the last occurred we had to acquiesce—for reasons which are not germane and which need not be discussed this evening—in the loss of a large part of Indo-China. But I think that the reaction of most of us concerned for an acceptable state of peace in the world was, "For heaven's sake we must now quickly draw a line and make clear that what has gone has gone, and that there is to be no more."

Mr. Warbey: Can my right hon. Friend explain why he categorises Chinese assistance to Vietminh in Indo-China as an act of aggression, while he is apparently prepared to categorise the offer of greater American assistance to the forces putting down the rebellion against colonial rule in Indo-China as assistance to the free world?

Mr. Brown: First of all, I do not accept the two definitions, one in the case of China and the other in the case of America. Secondly, I say——

Mr. Warbey: But——

Mr. Brown: No, I am sorry. My hon. Friend has asked a question——

Mr. Warbey: But my right hon. Friend gave it as an example of Chinese aggression.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend must accept the answer I am about to give.

Dr. H. Morgan: Which is quite wrong.

Mr. Brown: This may or may not please him and it may or may not be right, but that was the risk he took when he asked the question. First, I do not accept his definition and, second, nobody, no matter how he feels about Mr. Dulles or particular acts of American statesmen, could feel that America is pursuing in any of these matters a policy which is likely to prevent a country being assisted from being independent afterwards. That seems to be completely missing what is going on. The whole point about China's support in Indo-China was that it was to enable an area to be taken over, to be turned into a satellite, to be turned into

something under the control of the countries behind the Iron Curtain.
With great respect—and I get angry about it too—I am bound to say I see no example anywhere in the world where America has done anything which turned a country into a satellite of the American nation, with its foreign policy and defence policy controlled from America. Although Guatemala is not included in the treaty, I would defend that proposition in relation to Guatemala even though I think the Americans behaved there in a way very difficult for the rest of us to defend. Nevertheless, I think this particular doctrine will stand up there.
It is all very well to say that the proper place to resist aggression is through the United Nations. We all know the weaknesses of the United Nations, and we all know why we have to organise regional security arrangements—in order to avoid the essential difficulty of the veto in the Security Council. However much we regret it—and I do not know that I particularly regret it, because I see nothing wrong in regional organisation, and there is no reason why resistance to aggression should be done only in a great global fashion—we must not delude ourselves: we must recognise there are weaknesses at United Nations, and since our purpose is to organise the effective defence of the free world, then if we cannot do it at United Nations we must have some other way. That justifies the regional security pact approach.
My next point, and I apologise for being so long, is on the question of peaceful co-existence. If we are to have peaceful co-existence we really must each of us understand that it involves not interfering with the other's way of life. I am as puzzled as are some of my hon. Friends who have been to other countries behind the Iron Curtain at the way we are expected not to assist the opponents of the regime—some of them very brave men—but we are apparently not to do anything to discourage Communists from doing exactly that very thing in all these other countries. "Peaceful co-existence" means nothing; it is the terms on which you have it. The lamb can always have a peaceful co-existence by lying down with the lion.
I come to my last point. Many people have talked about economic aid and


about the importance of economic aid and have rather imported into that argument a definite suggestion or implication that this kind of military organisation, this kind of defence organisation is perhaps, for that reason not all that important. What is the use of organising economic aid for those countries, if their independence is not to be protected? What is the use of our organising hundreds of millions of pounds of economic aid, expressed in materials and technical know-how—of which we ourselves are very short—if when we have done it, it is all to be poured into the lap of someone else who is allowed to come in and take over?
Let us remember that there is a Socialist Government in Burma, which is having a great deal of trouble with the Communist organisations inside Burma. I know that Burma has not signed this agreement, and we can all make our own guesses why. My guess is that Burma, in her difficult position, would be very happy indeed to have some treaty organisation effective in that area. That is my unsupported and unsubstantiated view. If my hon. Friend says that nobody will sleep better and easier in his bed in South-East Asia because this treaty has been signed, I would say that my own feeling is that all of us on the democratic side of the Iron Curtain can indeed be rather happier that a line has been drawn and that there are some arrangements to do something about future aggression. It may be that it might have been stronger or more all inclusive, although I am not sure, when I hear some of my hon. Friends demanding the two things at the same time, that their outlook is very realistic.
As to whether it might have been, and whether it would have been better if we on this side of the House had been handling Britain's part in the negotiations or not, I would say I do not think that great political foreign affairs issues are decided quite like that. My own view is that this treaty is more than we have had before. The aggressor knows the line over which he ought not to tread, and if anything happens there is an arrangement for us to meet and consult, and, we hope, do something about it. That makes me feel that much happier.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: I am sure I voice the thoughts of every hon. Member when I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) on his speech. I felt, irrespective of party—I know he will not think I am seeking to embarrass him with his hon. Friends—as I believe many of us felt, that the right hon. Gentleman was voicing the average, decent Englishman's appreciation of the real issues in international affairs, as they face us today, without regard to particular party lines.
I do not pretend to have the experience of the Far East which some of my colleagues who have addressed us have. I am impelled only to let hon. Members know some of the reactions which I obtained from Commonwealth Asian delegates at the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Nairobi, which I was fortunate enough to attend last September.
We have heard a good deal today about the treaty for South-East Asia, that it has no substantial South-East Asian membership, but I thought that the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), who opened for the Opposition, was being a little unfair to Pakistan, when he said at one stage of his speech that the only useful military aid that could give effect to this treaty, other than from ourselves and the United States of America, was from New Zealand and Australia. Pakistan is not a small, stooge country but one with a population of some 76 millions. She is devoting 80 per cent. of her budget to military defence measures and her people have a great record of military prowess. I do not think that the hon. Member would want it to go out that the position is any different from that.

Mr. Younger: I do not accept what the hon. Member says about a stooge country, which was not in my mind at all. I do not want to elaborate this point, but if the hon. Member considers the military expenditure of Pakistan, he will see that it does not relate to South-East Asia.

Mr. Bennett: That is a point which I shall touch on in a moment. I was taking the right hon. Gentleman's own remarks, which were that only from the


Western countries could there be any effective military aid under the treaty.
My next remark, which flows from the reactions which I gained from the Pakistan delegates who came to Nairobi, rather confutes what the right hon. Gentleman said. I went there expecting that when we discussed international defence we should find lukewarm support from Pakistan and Ceylon, the only two sovereign Asian countries represented there after India had decided not to attend. In fact, the contrary was the case. The Pakistan delegates were more forthright and outspoken in their condemnation of Communism and in their enthusiasm for the treaty than any other Dominion. Such criticism that Britain incurred was, if anything, that we might show appeasement towards Communism in South-East Asia.
It is true that Pakistan has other fears than Communism, and for this reason she maintains substantial armed forces, but if that threat which she fears from her stronger neighbour, especially with regard to Kashmir, were withdrawn, that would not mean that Pakistan would not stay alongside us as she is now under S.E.A.T.O. It is significant in that context that Pakistan has signed the treaty and has accepted the position that the strongest military member, the United States, will not regard the treaty as being invoked by any other attack than a Communist attack. In other words, any dispute with India would not under the United States reservation be regarded as necessarily one which invoked the treaty. That still did not stop Pakistan from coming in lock, stock and barrel, and entering into all its obligations.
It is a fair interpretation of the views of the delegates from Ceylon who were in Nairobi to say that they were a little surprised that their Government had not accepted the invitation to go to Manila. Such speeches as were made indicated an attitude not of any hostility to the treaty or unwillingness that it should be concluded. Rather, they felt that, as their Government had felt unable to join in any agreement at this stage, they could at least rely on British support through the military agreement that we already have with Ceylon.
There were also in Nairobi, although not representing self-governing territories

but nevertheless representing Asian and not Western peoples, delegates from Malaya and Singapore. It is a warming fact that they also came out wholeheartedly in support of the conclusion of such a treaty.
It really is not true to suggest that there is not substantial Asian support for the treaty. Of the nations that have been omitted, I thought that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) was accurate and fair when he said that although Burma and Ceylon and one or two others were not members of the organisation and felt that they could not now be, nevertheless they were extremely grateful for the thought that if they did get into a situation in which they were seriously threatened from outside they could rely on British help. In fact, I believe that both Burma and Ceylon have got agreements with this country which, in certain circumstances, mean that this merely psychological reliance is already backed by more effective protection.
The only great Power in the area which has expressed its open hostility to the treaty is India. That is not at all surprising. We all understand her position, if we do not agree with her attitude. India has been openly neutralist for some time past. Mr. Nehru has never suggested that he considers himself entirely linked with the Western bloc against the Communist bloc. In fact, he has persisted at all times in using the old term "a third force" in the Asiatic conception. I do not think any of us should be surprised if he does not join a treaty which links India with one group in this world, when he has so persistently and consistently made it clear that his country refuses to be drawn into conflict on one side or the other.
Turning to the treaty itself, I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to answer one question. As I see it, the territories to be guaranteed under S.E.A.T.O. outside the signatory Powers include the southern half of Indo-China, or Viet Nam as it is now called. We know that in a few years' time there will be elections, not just for the future of southern Indo-China but for the whole country. Can my hon. Friend tell the House what arrangements are then envisaged, under this treaty, for the future of southern Indo-China? We should have that question clarified, because we must face the eventual risk that after the elections


southern Indo-China may no longer be regarded as within the Western democratic bloc, over which we can expect to exert some degree of protection.
In these few minutes I have sought to put forward my belief that this is not, as has been alleged, just a South-East Asian treaty without Asian support. If we add up the total populations of the Philippines, Pakistan and Thailand, who have signed the treaty, they amount to no fewer than 113 million natural Asians. That excludes too the people of Singapore and the Malayan Federation, who come in under our wing. A treaty for an area which includes millions to the extent I have mentioned cannot possibly be regarded as a Western-imposed treaty without the support of the people in the areas affected.
If we were to say that because India, with the influence she can exert upon her smaller and weaker neighbours, would not join any security organisation, none could ever be drawn up, there would be no hope of bringing into being any form of international security organisation in the Far East. Therefore, like the right hon. Member for Belper—for the reasons which he so eloquently expressed and for those which I have sought to add—I welcome wholeheartedly the South-East Asian Treaty Organisation, which I am confident will lead to greater stability in what is probably up to now still the most threatened area of international tension in the world today.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett) is undoubtedly right in saying that this treaty has been signed by the representatives of a very substantial number of Asians. It is nevertheless fair comment to point out that the most important countries in the area to which the treaty applies are not signatories. Although many millions of Asians will be affected, a far greater number will not be.
I quite agree that Ceylon, India, perhaps—and certainly Burma—are probably glad that this treaty has been signed, and they will probably look to us to defend them. I suggest, however, that they would look to us to defend them in any case. One of the most important things we must consider is the question of troops

to put on the ground to do what is necessary to implement this treaty.
The Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher) and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) have all stressed the importance of drawing a line. I entirely agree with that. They have pointed out the disasters which have occurred in the past through a failure on the part of other countries to understand our position. They have also pointed out the very alarming increase in the Vietminh forces, and they have pointed to the very alarmingly large army of Chinese that still exists.
The nodal point of the whole matter is in Indo-China and Siam, and should it become necessary, as everybody prays it will not, to implement this treaty, then that is the area in which it will be implemented, and that is an area in which only land forces are likely to be required, apart from any action that could, perhaps, be taken by air or by sea against the coasts of China or against Northern Viet Nam, which would raise very wide issues and surely is not contemplated.
I noticed that during the earlier part of the debate the Minister of Defence was in attendance on the Government Front Bench, and I think that others must have been, as I was, glad to see him there, because there is no doubt that the treaty will add seriously to the military commitments of this country. It has been pointed out that we are barely able to support our present commitments, far less undertake these extra obligations of defending, if necessary, countries such as Siam, Laos or Cambodia.
The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe was honest enough to say that the whole of the obligation would really rest on the Americans. That is the truth of the matter, and certainly one of the most satisfactory features of the treaty is that it appears to be the end of America's rather anti-colonial outlook, and that at any rate there does not appear to be at the moment any danger of a relapse of America into isolation. I have always felt that the far greater danger was that America would become isolationist, rather than that she would become engaged in some ill-fated adventure in foreign parts.
She is the linch-pin of the whole defence system of the world, and the most serious thing that could happen is that


she should withdraw. The matter seriously to be considered by this country is, what forces we can place at the disposal of the associated Powers and what forces, if any, can be supplied by the Asian signatories.
This treaty has been criticised as being too weak and criticised as being too strong. It is said on the one hand, that it will not add very much to the defence system of Asia, and that Asians will not sleep any better in their beds because of it. It is said, on the other hand, that it will alarm the Chinese. We must all regret certainly that India, Ceylon and Burma are out of the treaty, but for my part I think there is something to be said for ceasing to paper over disagreements in the world, and for frankly facing them if they exist, and there is no doubt that there is a disagreement in policy between India and ourselves. It is possibly better to face that in a perfectly calm and friendly spirit rather than to attempt what would, in fact, be a false facade of agreement. I personally think that Mr. Nehru may have a better role outside this agreement than he could have in it. Therefore, I do not particularly regret the absence of India.
I do think it is extremely important not only that a line has been drawn but that there is now a basis of co-operation among the European nations. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe suggested that had there been that co-operation in the early days of the attack on Indo-China a very different story might have been written, and I am sure he is right, and I am sure it was because of the failure on the part of the free nations to have any common policy that things turned out as they did.
I believe also that the weakness in the treaty may in some ways prove an advantage because surely we must hope that in the long run China will be detached from Marxism and indeed Russia. I would make no excuse for the attack by China in Korea or in Veit Nam, but, nevertheless, I think it is possible that China has been genuinely frightened of attack by foreign Powers.
China has suffered a great deal in her history from such attacks. Not long ago she was overrun by the Japanese. We have to remember, in the light of this history, that the continued support of

Chiang Kai-shek in Formosa can be interpreted by the Chinese Government in Peking only as a threat to their security. It is therefore possible that the Chinese are alarmed. It may be quite a false alarm; it may be ridiculous for a nation of her size to feel that she is being encircled, but a nation which has suffered so much before now from invasion has some right to feel that she must watch carefully what takes place on her borders.
One of the most encouraging remarks of Mr. Nehru when he came back from China was to the effect that Indo-China had an Indian tradition and was inside the Indian sphere of influence. As this is one of the crisis points, to my mind, in Asia today, it is encouraging that Mr. Nehru regards it as being outside China's sphere. I believe that we have to take a rather old-fashioned view of what can be done in this area and accept the fact that there are certain spheres of influence. I believe that we have to leave China her sphere of influence and hope, as it were, that she will stay out of ours. We have made it clear that ours includes Cambodia, Laos and Siam.
As I have said, we should be in great difficulty in providing forces in that area. The problem is how to prevent insurrection in that area or open attack upon those countries, and one of the most useful steps which could be taken, coupled with this treaty, would be for us to endeavour to persuade the United States to put Formosa under some sort of international guarantee. I am sure that will not be easy and I am sure the Foreign Secretary cannot be expected to deal with the problem without American agreement, but if we are to have spheres of influence, then I should have thought that Formosa was clearly a Chinese sphere; and if we want her to leave our sphere alone, then we have to make every effort to keep clear of hers.
I sometimes think that we expect an immediate solution of too many of the world's problems. There are some problems, like the Israel-Arab dispute, like the problem of Eastern Germany, Which we could have solved at this moment only by war. I do not believe that any efforts by the Foreign Secretary, or any sleight of hand on the part of any new economic or international organisation, or even economic aid, will solve the problem of Asia at the moment. Our interest is to avoid


war at all costs, to keep the peace, to keep nations in contact with one another and gradually to try to relieve the tension and produce a better atmosphere and good will.
People who want quick results must face the fact that they can have them only with extreme danger. They must realise that there may be times when it is no good attempting to solve many of the world's problems. We have to resign oursleves, I believe, to a long and extremely irritating period of co-existence in the Russian meaning of the term—a term which means that if we put a foot wrong, they may well take advantage of it; a term which means that we have to continue on the look-out for minor aggression, for insurrections and for the difficulties caused by the growing pains of new, rising nationalisms all over the world.
It was suggested earlier that great stress should be laid on the technical and economic side of the treaty, but I side with those who feel that the articles which deal with economic development do not add very much to the existing machinery under the Colombo Plan. I entirely sympathise with those who feel that it would be a great pity if it were made an instrument of discrimination between certain Asiatic nations.
But this treaty provides a base for cooperation amongst European nations and I believe that those nations can do a great deal more useful work if they are united than if they are disunited. They can offer technical aid and education. There is a great deal which we can do among ourselves in Europe to evolve new political techniques suitable for countries dependent on us. It seems to me that we behave towards the nations of Asia and Africa for which we bear some responsibility as though we could still practise the very agreeable Liberal doctrines of the last century. We talk about self-determination and feel that once these countries have a parliament, a speaker and a mace their problems are solved. They have no civil service and no machinery for running their countries, and in the state of the world today self-determination is very largely a meaningless phrase because, whether we like it or not, the future of many nations is not going to be entirely in their own hands.
I personally rather regret, which may seem strange coming from a Liberal, the remarks in the earlier part of the treaty concerning equal rights and self-determination of peoples. I regret it because we do not believe any longer in self-determination of the old-fashioned sort. We are not prepared to allow it in Cyprus or British Guiana.
It will be extremely difficult for this country to see some of the nations affected by this treaty determining themselves into Communism. The object of this treaty is to stop that. It is slightly foolish to use these particular phrases when later on we may have to take part in interfering in the internal affairs of a country should they be threatened with Communist insurrection.
The right hon. Member for Belper was very pleased with Article IV. He thought that it was very realistic of the treaty to make provision for infiltration, and, of course, it is, because that is the way in which Communism would advance. But how exactly are we to deal with it? That appears to be the difficulty. We should all like to stop it if Communists are using unfair means. But when does fair become unfair and propaganda something unfair and not merely a political argument? I do not know, and I do not think that the Foreign Secretary knows. I do not believe that anyone in this House really knows. All we can say is that at some point the treaty powers are prepared to interfere very forcibly in the affairs of sovereign countries, but only if it is done "in accordance with their constitutional processes" I feel that where necessary that we shall wriggle out under that device. I believe that we have not really faced the problem of infiltration.
I personally, like other hon. Members, am prepared to support this treaty while making every sort of criticism of it. I do not think that the Foreign Secretary has great enthusiasm for it, and the hon. Member who spoke for the Opposition devoted the whole of his speech to criticising it, and then said that he would support it. But I do not think that we could have got anything else, and I think that without it the structure of Geneva might have been incomplete. I think that it is a price well worth paying, because I believe that Geneva was a great success, because had that disastrous war


in Indo-China gone on there would have been suffering on a scale which would not have been forgotten in our generation.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: I am glad to have waited so long in this debate, because I have at least heard one hon. Member in this House make some honest remarks instead of double-talk and evasion. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has told us that one purpose of this treaty is to prevent people from self-determining themselves into Communism That is a more honest statement than we have had from some other hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown).
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that the purpose of this treaty is to defend the free world in the light of democracy. It is, of course, nothing of the sort. It is given away by this American understanding which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) pointed out, has been incorporated in the body of the treaty and above the signatures. I think that we should hear from the Government why this has been done, and why this has not appeared as a separate addendum or protocol. We ought to hear whether the Government associate themselves with that understanding or not.
The Foreign Secretary used some very evasive words when challenged on this point. He objected to putting an adjective in front of "aggression," because somehow it was not in good taste in an international document. In fact, he clearly implied that the only kind of aggression that he had in mind and as being affected by the treaty would be Communist aggression. He clearly had not in mind, for example, the possibility of aggression by some other non-Communist State in the treaty area. He clearly did not have in mind that the treaty would come into action if there were aggression by Siam against Laos or Cambodia—[Laughter]—which the Foreign Secretary thinks amusing, but which took place at the end of the last war in 1945. The right hon. Gentleman has apparently forgotten that now.
I should like to ask the Foreign Secretry whether the treaty will come into operation in the event of an act of aggression by one of the three or four private armies which exist in Southern Viet Nam. We have all read, in "The Times" and elsewhere, that Southern Viet Nam is in a state of political chaos and that there are three or four private armies, one of them sustained by a gambling concession, which is a very happy way of sustaining an army. At the same time, again according to "The Times" correspondent, the general opinion about Southern Viet Nam is that if free elections took place tomorrow, eight out of 10 people would vote Communist. I ask the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper to note that. I wonder whether the information of the Foreign Secretary or his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary is different from that. If so, perhaps they will tell us.
If the Foreign Secretary's information is not different, what conclusions can one draw from that? They are, first, that free elections under the Geneva Agreement were deliberately postponed as long as possible in order to prevent the people from declaring themselves in favour of a Communist regime. Second, that some people inside and outside Southern Viet Nam will have a vested interest in preventing those free elections from ever taking place and, therefore, that there is a strong possibility now that what I suggested might take place: namely, a provocative action by one of these private armies which does not want free elections to take place in Southern Viet Nam.
According to the American understanding, however, that will not be an act of Communist aggression; and so we do nothing. But what happens when the Southern Viet Nam Army has marched north and the North counter-attacks? That will then be Communist aggression, and then, of course, we will be called in to act under the treaty. So once again, as has happened in other cases and throughout the whole history of Indo-China, we condemn Chinese assistance to Vietminh as aggression, but the American assistance, far greater, to the French forces in Indo-China we uphold as a demonstration on behalf, and in defence, of the free world.
What hypocrisy! It really is utter hypocrisy and humbug. This treaty does something, at least, to strip the pretence away, because it does say that we are not really concerned about aggression in general but are only concerned about Communist aggression and nothing else.
I should be worried about this if I thought there were any military teeth in the treaty, but I understand that there are not and that we need not worry very much about the treaty at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is 'we'?"] Nehru need not worry, U Nu need not worry, the Prime Minister of Indonesia need not worry, but all of them, apparently, are very worried at the moment, and that is why they will not come into the treaty. They are worried for the reason which Nehru has explained. I will quote Nehru's words; everyone else has been talking about what Nehru said but very few people have quoted him. I will read what Mr. Nehru said according to the "Manchester Guardian." He said that it was his considered view that an area of peace in South-East Asia had been converted by S.E.A.T.O. into a potential area of war. When I say that there is now no need for Nehru to worry or U Nu or Sukarno either, it is because I am——

Mr. Julian Amery: Mr. Julian Amery (Preston, North) rose——

Mr. Warbey: No, I cannot give way as I have not much time left.

Mr. Amery: I just wanted to ask this question. The hon. Gentleman keeps saying "we" Is he speaking on behalf of his party, because he seems to be winding up?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: One rebel to another.

Mr. Warbey: I was saying that I do not think we need worry very much. When I say "we," I am speaking on behalf of those in all parts of the House who are concerned to see a genuine application of the principle of peaceful coexistence in Asia, by which I mean a settlement of disputes by peaceful negotiations involving mutual concessions, which is the way to reach agreement if we genuinely want to reach agreement, as the right hon. Gentleman so well knows. He did it at Geneva, and that is why he succeeded.
If I may I should like to return to the meaning of Article IV, paragraph 1. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he does not know what the Minister of State said the other day in reply to my Question, because notice was given of the Question and, therefore, a considered reply was given. I am sure the Joint Under-Secretary of State will confirm that a reply was given and it applies to all the paragraphs of Article IV of the treaty.
I am sorry to read the answer again, but it is important, even though the right hon. Gentleman tries to brush it aside, because his friends in America do not like being told that there are no teeth in the treaty. Here is the answer:
The nature of the action to be taken by Her Majesty's Government would entirely depend on the circumstances in which Article 4 of the Treaty was invoked and on the general situation prevailing at the time"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st Nov., 1954; Vol. 532, c. 28.]
I understand that to mean that this Government preserve a completely free hand in what action they shall take, including any action at all, if the treaty is imposed.
The action might take the form of a protest, sending a diplomatic note, or appealing to the United Nations. It need not take the form of military action, and we are not bound under this treaty to take any form of military action whatsoever. Any Government—including a future Labour Government, I am glad to say—will be free to decide for themselves in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time whether or not they take military action or any form of action under this treaty, and if I am wrong I hope I shall be corrected.
I hope I am right and, if I am right, I will say once again that those of us who believe in trying to create an area of peace in South-East Asia, as Nehru does, will be glad to know that this treaty is only a gesture to enable Mr. Dulles to try not to lose the American elections too badly. And now that it has served its purpose not very well, it might just as well be put quietly into the pigeon-hole while we get on with the proper job of trying, in association with the Asian members of the Commonwealth and with Burma and Indonesia, to build up a genuine area of peace in South-East Asia, and also to develop what is the only effective antidote


to Communism in that area, or indeed anywhere in the world, and that is real economic and social advance for the masses of the people in those areas.

10.41 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): I fear that I have a very short time in which to answer this important debate, and therefore I intend to concentrate on the major points that have been raised. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will permit me, I will leave the more minor points to be dealt with by personal correspondence afterwards.
Let me first try to put this matter in perspective. Any successful attempt to establish a peaceful order in the world must be based not only on strength but also, as Dr. Albert Schweitzer said in his address last Thursday, on compassion. The history of events from the Geneva Conference until the conclusion of the Manila Conference must, therefore, be viewed in the light of how far we and the other signatories have provided for the strength of the free peoples in this area—South-East Asia and the South-West Pacific—and what provision has been made for measures of compassion to relieve distress in that area.
What this House must remember is that these two aspects of the solution are inseparable. Defensive strength is incomplete without measures towards raising the standard of living in the region, and humanitarian effort to relieve distress is likely to fail unless the peoples of that area can be protected against aggression and subversive activities directed from without their frontiers. The speeches this evening have been directed to both these problems and, if I may, I will deal with those two problems separately.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), who opened for the Opposition, started by asking, why have this treaty at all? If there were no reciprocal international guarantee possible then it was absolutely vital that there should be the final declaration at the Geneva Conference and some collective safeguard; otherwise there would have been a very dangerous gap in this part of the world at that time. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, not all the Commonwealth countries are in it" He must remember that, in fact, there are

three important Commonwealth countries in it—Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan——

Mr. Younger: I said so.

Mr. Turton: —and those countries were urging us to have some collective treaty at that time. Therefore, this Government must support the will and wish of those three Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Douglas Glover: Has not my hon. Friend forgotten the most important member of the Commonwealth —Great Britain?

Mr. Turton: I was talking of the treaty which Her Majesty's Government have made.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby then said that he regarded this treaty as of no significance. He was corrected later in the debate by the right hon. Gentleman file Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who pointed out that in his view this treaty was not a side-line. I think one of the most extraordinary parts of this debate has been the different attitude to this treaty of Members on the opposite side of the House——

Mr. Harold Davies: Oh.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), who has just interrupted, described this treaty as a tragedy, a racket and then a humbug. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) described it far the most fairly when he said that it would create an atmosphere in which peace was likely to succeed. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) of course said that "we" do not fear this treaty, that "we" need not worry about it at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) asked why it was that my noble Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs was present at this conference and not Mr. Malcolm MacDonald. Surely the answer is that my noble Friend is a Minister of this Government and Mr. MacDonald is not, and that if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was not able to get to the Manila Conference it was vital that my noble Friend should go to represent this country.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby said that in his view the treaty was militarily ineffective. Is that really the case


when in the signatories to the treaty there is the whole weight of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, all pledged to hold the ring and to enable the small countries of South-East Asia to develop in peace, and outside the ring the military potential of the non-signing Powers is small? Surely that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman. During the whole of his speech the right hon. Gentleman was trying to damn the treaty with faint praise, and his praise was so faint that nobody in the House could hear it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether Articles II and IV of the treaty were something new. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who certainly made the best contribution to the debate from that side of the House, in a most statesmanlike and thoughtful speech, destroyed his right hon. Friend's criticism. The right hon. Member for Grimsby asked if the Articles were a departure from the United Nations Charter definition of aggression. There is no definition of aggression in that Charter. This treaty, like the North Atlantic Treaty, is founded on Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. The answer to the question of the right hon. Member for Grimsby about the powers in Article II of this treaty is to refer him to the North Atlantic Treaty. He will see that when Articles 3 and 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty are combined they are very nearly word for word the same as Article II of this treaty. That is the legal justification for that Article. But I would not rest my support of that Article merely on a legal definition.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there are similar provisions in the North Atlantic Treaty dealing with types of aggression other than military aggression, corresponding to the second paragraph of Article IV of this treaty?

Mr. Turton: I am dealing with Article II and the question which the right hon. Gentleman asked as to whether that is a new provision. Article II states:
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack "—

That is the same as Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty—
and to prevent and counter subversive activities directed from without against their territorial integrity and political stability.
That is the spirit of Article IV of the North Atlantic Treaty, which reads:
The parties will consult together where-ever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.
That seems to me to be the answer. But quite apart from any legal foundation, as the right hon. Member for Belper said, a line must be drawn, and because the line is drawn there is, therefore, more hope of peace in that part of the world.
I will deal quickly with the query about Article IV of the treaty put by the hon. Member for Broxtowe. He quoted an answer to a Parliamentary Question given on 1st November by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. That answer correctly sets out the position under Article IV. Article IV says that when the aggression arises each party will act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. That leaves it open to each party, as my right hon. Friend said, to take action. The action will entirely depend on the circumstances in which Article IV of the treaty is invoked and the general circumstances prevailing at the time. That is exactly as in N.A.T.O.

Mr. Warbey: Then there is no automatic commitment?

Mr. Turton: There is one point in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion with which I want to deal. He asked why were Hong Kong and Formosa left out? The answer is that because the geographical limit in this treaty is South-East Asia, and the South-West Pacific and those countries are without that geographical limit. May I make it absolutely clear that it is the intention of H.M. Government to protect Hong Kong and that remains firm and unchallenged.
I turn for a moment to the economic measures in this treaty. The right hon. Member for Grimsby and the right hon. Member for Smethwick asked that Article III should not detract from our participation in the Colombo Plan. My right hon. Friend gave that assurance in


his speech. We will not see the Colombo Plan impaired by any commitments which may arise under Article III, which can only arise when the Treaty Council has been established. It would be helpful if I remind the House of what is actually happening and what help is already being given to South-East Asia under the Colombo Plan and otherwise.
In the Colombo Plan the total amount of grants and loans in external aid made available during 1954 was about £ 110 million. In addition, International Bank loans totalled £ 12 million, and from United Kingdom sources an amount of about £ 60 million, including sterling balances released, was available to the area. In addition, under the Technical Co-operation Scheme we had, by June, 1954, agreed to supply about £ 840,000 worth of equipment and had under consideration requests estimated to cost £ 600,000, and were spending considerable sums on training and the provision of experts.
The United Nations has approved as aid from its side for that area projects to the value of just over five million dollars. As far the United States, provision for economic aid, leaving out of account the very large sums originally intended for the support of forces in Indo-China and Point Four aid, for the whole area of the Far East and the Pacific will this year amount to 140 million dollars.
The House will recognise that a great deal is being done in this area already, and we mean to continue the help. I remember in the debate on 23rd June, to which reference has been made, the right

hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) described the enterprise of the Government as the designing and building;——
…of the permanent Temple of Peace." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1954; Vol. 529, c. 447.]
At Geneva and at Manila, the Government have laid the foundation of a part of that Temple of Peace in South-East Asia and the South-West Pacific.
Many men of all parties and in other countries have shared in the architecture of that peaceful edifice, determined that this region of the world that suffered so much misery in the last war should not again become the victim of totalitarian aggression. Last summer the world stood in peril of a conflagration spreading from this region. It is to the good fortune of the world that the statemanship displayed by my right hon. Friend and the other Foreign Ministers of the leading Powers rose to the occasion and averted that danger. This House and the country have, I think, good cause for sober satisfaction.
Our policy is to plant in the disorder of South-East Asia a measure of the stability we have succeeded in establishing in the North Atlantic. Our policy threatens no one who wishes well for this important region but seeks to give to it the blessings of security and economic progress. For those reasons, with confidence, I commend this policy to the approval of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the policy of Her Majesty's Government in South-East Asia as expressed in the Agreements reached at Geneva and in the Manila Treaty.

WELSH AFFAIRS (UNDER-SECRETARY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [(Sir C. Drewe.]

10.58 p.m.

Mr. David Llewellyn: I know that I am voicing the feelings of Members in all parts of the House and of Welsh Members especially when I congratulate my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary and Minister for Welsh Affairs upon his appointment. In expressing to him the good wishes of his fellow-countrymen, I should like to add my own appreciation of the fact that he has chosen to reply in person to the debate tonight.
I raise the question of the future of the Welsh Under-Secretary to clarify the position which has arisen as a result of my right hon. Friend's appointment, that of the new Under-Secretary of State and certain Press notices which have appeared. Having held the office of Welsh Under-Secretary for a year, and so learned of its potential worth to Wales, I felt obliged to raise the matter at an early date, though for personal reasons I would rather not do so.
On 13th November, 1951, the Prime Minister announced that the Minister for Welsh Affairs would be assisted by a Welsh Under-Secretary. That statement did not mean, and was not taken to mean, that both would necessarily be of Welsh nationality, for the then Minister for Welsh Affairs was blessed with all the virtues except Welshness and I, having Welshness but none of the Minister's virtues, was honoured with a chance to assist him.
During the Second Reading of the Ministers of the Crown (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Bill, the duties of a Welsh Under-Secretary were detailed in this way:
It will be part of his duty to pay frequent visits to Wales, and he will be provided with accommodation in Cardiff from which he can be in touch with the actual physical offices which are situated there; and he will become chairman of the conference of heads of Government Offices in Wales, which meets quarterly:. In addition to that he will give me his information and advice on the major issues of special interest to Wales, so that I

may be kept fully briefed in such matters as are to be discussed in the Cabinet; and he will assist me in relations with the Council for Wales and will receive deputations either in Wales or London from the Council or other representative Welsh bodies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 1744.]
In another place the then Lord Chancellor said:
The Home Secretary has taken upon himself the additional burden of having a peculiar responsibility for the affairs of Wales. It is quite clear that if he undertakes that duty he must receive the assistance of an additional Under-Secretary"—.[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 6th December, 1951; Vol. 174, c. 861.]
In the event the duties of the Under-Secretary as then outlined contracted only in one particular, and that was that the local authorities and other delegations from Wales showed a marked preference for coming to London rather than to Cardiff. On the other hand, the duties expanded substantially—modestly in my case, and substantially later—by including, for example, the chairmanship of divers inquiries, the responsibility for the preparation of a Welsh digest of statistics and in other ways.
It was, therefore, with some alarm that I read in the "Daily Telegraph," which, as the House knows is an international organ of Welsh opinion, that
neither of the Under-Secretaries will take over the special duties in relation to Wales which Lord Lloyd discharged at the Home Office.
I was alarmed not least for the Minister's sake, for though he has an unrivalled knowledge of Welsh affairs, it seemed to be wrong that he should be saddled with the burden of the Under-Secretary's duties at a time when the work of the Home Office is expanding.
I have studied with some care the Press reactions to the new appointments to the Home Office and the Ministry for Welsh Affairs, and also the statements which accompanied them. The "Liverpool Daily Post" under a heading, "No Under-Secretary for Welsh Affairs," ascribed this development to the fact that my right hon. and gallant Friend knows the Principality better than any other Minister in the Government, which is true. But that paper went on to argue that
he will…therefore be able to dispense with the services of an Under-Secretary with special responsibility for Welsh affairs
which does not follow.
The "Western Mail," in its leading article, said:
Of one thing we are sure: the new Minister for Welsh Affairs will sorely feel the need for an Under-Secretary at the Home Office specially assigned to the service of the Principality.
It did not plead that the Under-Secretary should be Welsh or sit for a Welsh seat or be exclusively assigned to Welsh duties, and it ended:
To expect the Minister in addition to the manifold duties of the Home Secretary to carry the full weight of Welsh affairs is asking a very great deal of any man.
Judging from the editions in the Library, not all journals at home or abroad seized upon the points made by the "Liverpool Daily Post" and the "Western Mail." They include the "Daily Herald" and "Pravda," "The Times" and Paris "Soir," the "Record" and "Tribune," no doubt for good reasons of their own. Of the Welsh vernacular Press I am not qualified to judge, but I did notice that "Y Cymro" gave a brief editorial welcome to my right hon. and gallant Friend and a long description of the fight between Dai Dower and Tuli.
The duties of the Welsh Under-Secretary, which I do not feel that any Minister can combine without risk of detriment to one side of his duties or the other, include the following, which are of special importance. First he has the duty of presiding over the quarterly meetings of the heads of Government offices in Wales. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Herbert Morrison) started, I think, more than he knew when he inaugurated these meetings. I think it odd, because of that, that he made no mention of this innovation in his work, "Government and Parliament" The Welsh Under-Secretaryship in this connection is of value because it provides a link between Wales and Whitehall, which is the main stream of administration.
Also, it establishes a personal link with Ministers from time to time. In these quarterly meetings one has the élite of the Civil Service in Wales. There is free exchange of views and facts, and the fear that no good might result because the Under-Secretary had no departmental responsibility over any of the matters under discussion proved to be unfounded. Obviously, it is not possible for the

Minister for Welsh Affairs to preside over the meetings. It was fitting that the Under-Secretary should do so for him.
The Under-Secretary's duties include watching the relationship with the Advisory Council for Wales and Monmouthshire. If the Council is to survive, links with the Minister will have to be strengthened. We had one symptom of unrest not long ago when it issued, by courtesy of another Government office in Wales, notes for Opposition speakers on the morning of a Welsh day in this House. Here again, the Welsh Under-Secretary can provide the necessary link from day to day: and it is important for Wales, which likes its social democracy to be personal, to have as frequent links with Ministers as possible. Continuity can only be maintained in Welsh affairs under the present regime by an Under-Secretary of State who is enabled to pay frequent visits, both formal and informal.
I know that my right hon. Friend said last week that he had no intention of playing the rôle of Cinderella; but since the Home Secretary is so often cast in the rôle of Prince Charming in this House, it is evident that he cannot play Buttons in Bethesda at the same time, even though the rôle of Buttons is regarded by many Welshmen as the more important of the two.
Finally, I want to say one word about the Under-Secretaryship and future administration. Happily it is common ground between Conservatives and Socialists in Wales that advocacy of a Parliament for Wales, with all its vicious by-products, should be resisted. As an Aberdarian I was delighted to see the overwhelming numbers who rejected nationalism in my native Aberdare.
Even so, both the large parties are eager to improve administration, and to further devolution, where that is necessary. There are some who look forward to a St. David's House. Others want a less formidable hurdle for men of action to jump. Whatever scheme is decided upon, the heads of Government offices will have a vital part to play, and the stronger the link between them and the Minister for Welsh Affairs, the better.
For those four reasons I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will be able to assure the House and our country that the Welsh Under-Secretary's position has


not lapsed or been superseded, but goes on—for it has vital work to do.

11.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): May I first of all thank my hon. Friend for his kindly references to myself and for the way in which he has brought this matter forward? I am glad he has done so because it gives me the opportunity of clarifying the position. With regard to the question of the Under-Secretary, he is knocking at an open door because I have decided that my noble Friend, Lord Mancroft, shall concern himself particularly with Welsh affairs.
I do not think I can do better than refer to what my predecessor said in the debate on 29th November, 1951, in Which he described what the duties would be of the Under-Secretary with regard to Welsh affairs—to undertake visits to Wales, to attend conferences and quarterly meetings of heads of Departments and, in addition, to advise the Secretary of State on the major issues on which he would need to be fully briefed when such matters were discussed in the Cabinet. My predecessor went on to say in the debate
I want to say at once…that I do not want to create the impression that this appointment means, or is to be taken an excuse for, any inactivity in Welsh matters on my own part."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 1744.]

I think my Welsh colleagues in the House would like me to say that there was certainly no sign of inactivity, so far as Welsh affairs were concerned, by my predecessor. One of the things which has struck us all is that the departure of one who was not a Welshman has been received with 'universal regret throughout the whole of Wales. Everyone, regardless of party, remembers the work which he did during his period of office.
I do not want to detain the House at this late hour, but I should like to say one other word. The Under-Secretary will naturally keep in constant touch with me on all matters dealing with Wales. I hope the House will not accuse me of undue immodesty when I lay claim to some knowledge of Wales and the Welsh people, and I shall certainly keep in the very closest touch with my noble Friend.
I hope that what I have said will reassure my hon. Friend on this point, and I should like to assure my colleagues, in particular my Welsh colleagues, that I regard it as a very great privilege to be the Minister responsible in this House for the affairs of my native land.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.